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.
-28.68%
Negative net income growth while CRWV stands at 7.67%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
5.06%
Less D&A growth vs. CRWV's 26.15%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-181.06%
Negative yoy deferred tax while CRWV stands at 3.70%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
3.60%
SBC growth while CRWV is negative at -21.18%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
617.63%
Slight usage while CRWV is negative at -110.52%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
203.04%
AR growth while CRWV is negative at -35.57%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-54.83%
Negative yoy usage while CRWV is 112.72%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-3.10%
Negative yoy while CRWV is 23.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
4.53%
Some CFO growth while CRWV is negative at -510.76%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
24.94%
Some CapEx rise while CRWV is negative at -74.30%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
100.00%
Acquisition growth of 100.00% while CRWV is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-78.34%
Negative yoy purchasing while CRWV stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-29.18%
Both yoy lines are negative, with CRWV at -100.00%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
456.74%
Growth well above CRWV's 202.79%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-140.46%
Both yoy lines negative, with CRWV at -70.42%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
95.24%
We repay more while CRWV is negative at -200.00%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
-19.72%
Negative yoy issuance while CRWV is 4.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
99.36%
Buyback growth of 99.36% while CRWV is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.