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.
19.74%
Some net income increase while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-3.34%
Negative yoy D&A while PANW is 0.57%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
69.36%
Well above PANW's 100.00% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
9.54%
SBC growth while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-89.91%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PANW is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
188.66%
AR growth well above PANW's 100.00%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
16.13%
Inventory growth of 16.13% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-13233.33%
Negative yoy AP while PANW is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-100.26%
Negative yoy usage while PANW is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
96.19%
Some yoy increase while PANW is negative at -110.23%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
46.22%
Some CFO growth while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
25.59%
Lower CapEx growth vs. PANW's 100.00%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
-396.73%
Both yoy lines negative, with PANW at -100.00%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
-77.70%
Negative yoy purchasing while PANW stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
30.63%
We have some liquidation growth while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
148.40%
Growth well above PANW's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-20.34%
We reduce yoy invests while PANW stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-26.79%
We cut debt repayment yoy while PANW is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
112.45%
Issuance growth of 112.45% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild dilution that must be justified by expansions or acquisitions vs. competitor’s stable share base.
-14.59%
We cut yoy buybacks while PANW is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.