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
Helps investors judge whether earnings growth is driven by sustainable operations or temporary factors. Consistent, organic income expansion can justify a higher intrinsic value for patient, long-term investors.
-8.82%
Both companies show declining revenue. Martin Whitman would check for industry-wide issues.
10.70%
Cost growth above 1.5x SNAP's 6.53%. Michael Burry would check for structural cost disadvantages.
-11.45%
Both companies show declining gross profit. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-2.89%
Both companies show margin pressure. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
17.34%
R&D growth less than half of SNAP's 1140.45%. David Dodd would verify if efficiency advantage is sustainable.
27.18%
G&A growth less than half of SNAP's 1660.41%. David Dodd would verify if efficiency advantage is structural.
-5.46%
Marketing expense reduction while SNAP shows 336.07% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine competitive risk.
200.00%
Other expenses growth above 1.5x SNAP's 115.39%. Michael Burry would check for concerning trends.
10.95%
Operating expenses growth less than half of SNAP's 1108.36%. David Dodd would verify sustainability.
10.89%
Total costs growth less than half of SNAP's 604.62%. David Dodd would verify sustainability.
19.64%
Interest expense growth while SNAP reduces costs. John Neff would investigate differences.
9.28%
D&A growth 50-75% of SNAP's 17.09%. Bruce Berkowitz would examine asset strategy.
-22.83%
Both companies show EBITDA decline. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-15.37%
Both companies show margin pressure. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-27.15%
Both companies show declining income. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-20.10%
Both companies show margin pressure. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
338.24%
Other expenses growth 50-75% of SNAP's 479.41%. Bruce Berkowitz would examine cost efficiency.
-24.82%
Both companies show declining income. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-17.55%
Both companies show margin pressure. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-64.32%
Both companies reducing tax expense. Martin Whitman would check patterns.
-14.07%
Both companies show declining income. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-5.82%
Both companies show margin pressure. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-14.52%
Both companies show declining EPS. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-14.05%
Both companies show declining diluted EPS. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
0.29%
Share count increase while SNAP reduces shares. John Neff would investigate differences.
0.20%
Diluted share increase while SNAP reduces shares. John Neff would investigate differences.