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
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
3.75%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 13.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
2.65%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 41.65%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-1.40%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 7.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-1.40%
Negative operating income growth while SNAP is at 9.63%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
0.61%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 7.97%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
1.14%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 7.41%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
1.15%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 7.41%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.58%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.54%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
19.00%
OCF growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 33.51%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
46.23%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 32.20%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
1113.15%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 900.49%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
486.74%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 900.49%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
198.07%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 900.49%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1018.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 23.58%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
579.93%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 23.58%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
234.23%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 23.58%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
1807.97%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
948.96%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
463.49%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
430.59%
Equity/share CAGR of 430.59% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
89.58%
Equity/share CAGR of 89.58% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
8.37%
AR growth well above SNAP's 6.95%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.39%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.80%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-42.15%
We’re deleveraging while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.31%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 0.13%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
9.12%
We expand SG&A while SNAP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.