PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-64.71%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with SNAP at -61.95%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
10.61%
D&A growth well above SNAP's 2.81%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-8.96%
Negative yoy deferred tax while SNAP stands at 48.05%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
4.02%
Less SBC growth vs. SNAP's 33.49%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
374.43%
Well above SNAP's 177.74% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
168.41%
AR growth well above SNAP's 176.91%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
2653.37%
Inventory growth of 2653.37% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-172.18%
Both negative yoy AP, with SNAP at -72.18%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
2411.03%
Some yoy usage while SNAP is negative at -422.81%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
131.58%
Some yoy increase while SNAP is negative at -317.65%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
21.13%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of SNAP's 47.50%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
12.12%
Lower CapEx growth vs. SNAP's 48.05%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
63.50%
Acquisition spending well above SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier integration risk or short-term free cash flow drain vs. competitor.
-230.65%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -56.75%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
41.25%
We have some liquidation growth while SNAP is negative at -10.32%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-138.10%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -99.74%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-80.53%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -149.82%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
82.49%
Buyback growth of 82.49% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.