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.
22.62%
Some net income increase while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-4.47%
Negative yoy D&A while PANW is 0.57%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
20.95%
Lower deferred tax growth vs. PANW's 100.00%, implying fewer future tax liabilities. David Dodd would confirm there’s no short-term tax shock instead.
4.73%
SBC growth while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-204.59%
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.
-189.00%
AR is negative yoy while PANW is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
181.20%
Inventory growth of 181.20% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
154.00%
AP growth well above PANW's 100.00%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-117.28%
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.
31.33%
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.
-48.91%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with PANW at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
12.94%
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.
90.51%
Some acquisitions while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
20.51%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. PANW's 100.00%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
61.57%
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.
-38.51%
We reduce yoy other investing while PANW is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
68.33%
Investing outflow well above PANW's 100.00%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
-22.85%
We cut debt repayment yoy while PANW is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
272.88%
Issuance growth of 272.88% 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.
-14.84%
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.