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.
244.60%
Net income growth above 1.5x CRWV's 7.67%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
-2.14%
Negative yoy D&A while CRWV is 26.15%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
111.34%
Well above CRWV's 3.70% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
3.06%
SBC growth while CRWV is negative at -21.18%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
3.28%
Slight usage while CRWV is negative at -110.52%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
217.03%
AR growth while CRWV is negative at -35.57%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-118.41%
Negative yoy inventory while CRWV is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
4.93%
A yoy AP increase while CRWV is negative at -663.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-57.68%
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.
-163.86%
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.
26.09%
Some CFO growth while CRWV is negative at -510.76%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
23.86%
Some CapEx rise while CRWV is negative at -74.30%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
37.70%
Acquisition growth of 37.70% while CRWV is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-48.74%
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.
51.26%
We have some liquidation growth while CRWV is negative at -100.00%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
2166.67%
Growth well above CRWV's 202.79%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
0.02%
We have mild expansions while CRWV is negative at -70.42%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
46.30%
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.
45.03%
Stock issuance far above CRWV's 4.88%. Michael Burry flags a significant dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach unless ROI is very high.
-11.17%
We cut yoy buybacks while CRWV is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.