PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
503.87 - 512.55
344.79 - 555.45
23.62M / 20.39M (Avg.)
37.30 | 13.67
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.
-2.27%
Negative net income growth while BB stands at 54.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-7.53%
Negative yoy D&A while BB is 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
19.19%
Deferred tax of 19.19% while BB is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
9.07%
SBC growth while BB is negative at -12.50%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-1449.42%
Both reduce yoy usage, with BB at -264.24%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-142.59%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with BB at -103.85%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
290.62%
Inventory growth of 290.62% while BB is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
204.59%
AP growth well above BB's 109.09%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
39.10%
Growth well above BB's 63.21%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
880.80%
Well above BB's 90.39%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-34.78%
Negative yoy CFO while BB is 13.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-5.90%
Both yoy lines negative, with BB at -0.03%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
24.01%
Acquisition growth of 24.01% while BB is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-26.54%
Negative yoy purchasing while BB stands at 52.25%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
25.80%
Below 50% of BB's 176.08%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
98.25%
Growth well above BB's 89.56%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
7.16%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. BB's 257.74%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
100.00%
Debt repayment growth of 100.00% while BB is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
-63.74%
Both yoy lines negative, with BB at -99.76%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment or preference for internal financing over new equity in the niche.
-21.40%
We cut yoy buybacks while BB is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.