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.
23.22%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 30.95%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
24.84%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 76.62%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
35.27%
EBIT growth 75-90% of SNAP's 41.07%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
35.27%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 39.79%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
33.97%
Net income growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 41.05%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
34.83%
EPS growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 44.00%. Bill Ackman would push for improved profitability or share repurchases to catch up.
35.23%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 44.00%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
-0.93%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.12%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.14%. 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.
2.51%
OCF growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 4.90%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
-20.11%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 6.32%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1172.67%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 580.66%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
476.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 580.66%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
187.48%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 580.66%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1182.18%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 29.71%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
450.09%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 29.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
169.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 29.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
1839.28%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1066.32%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
339.65%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1361.37%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 72.77%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
379.24%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 72.77%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
88.88%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 72.77%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
25.24%
AR growth well above SNAP's 35.57%. 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.
5.28%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.69%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
614.29%
Debt growth of 614.29% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
7.45%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
19.92%
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.