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.
7.70%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 17.79%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
10.85%
Some D&A expansion while SNAP is negative at -2.83%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-99.45%
Negative yoy deferred tax while SNAP stands at 209.40%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
29.01%
SBC growth well above SNAP's 20.31%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
-26.38%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -129.50%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-194.02%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -155.31%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
2.27%
Inventory growth of 2.27% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
108.33%
Lower AP growth vs. SNAP's 579.90%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
24.80%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. SNAP's 106.13%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
50.00%
Some yoy increase while SNAP is negative at -2053.47%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-7.45%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with SNAP at -44.74%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
5.32%
Lower CapEx growth vs. SNAP's 35.39%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
94.00%
Acquisition growth of 94.00% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
21.97%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. SNAP's 46.19%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
30.01%
We have some liquidation growth while SNAP is negative at -12.45%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-28.00%
We reduce yoy other investing while SNAP is 3348.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
40.75%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 328.25%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
-13.60%
We cut debt repayment yoy while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-86.79%
We cut yoy buybacks while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.