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.
9.45%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 47.13%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
0.66%
Less D&A growth vs. SNAP's 20.31%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-45.22%
Negative yoy deferred tax while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
39.23%
SBC growth well above SNAP's 8.24%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
-34.07%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -207.04%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-260.90%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -234.90%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
68.12%
Inventory growth of 68.12% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
146.40%
A yoy AP increase while SNAP is negative at -188.77%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
68.18%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. SNAP's 528.94%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
68.18%
Some yoy increase while SNAP is negative at -200.15%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
8.20%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -173.85%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-7.96%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -34.76%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-65.25%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -51.70%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
24.92%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x SNAP's 5.15%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
-2950.00%
We reduce yoy other investing while SNAP is 50.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-68.14%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -53.00%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
18.54%
Debt repayment growth of 18.54% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-79.72%
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.