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.
-22.89%
Negative net income growth while PANW stands at 87.74%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
12.98%
Less D&A growth vs. PANW's 29.83%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-1057.14%
Negative yoy deferred tax while PANW stands at 82.47%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
2.78%
Less SBC growth vs. PANW's 87.85%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
86.98%
Slight usage while PANW is negative at -80.63%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
175.85%
AR growth while PANW is negative at -231.38%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-105.61%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with PANW at -630.14%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-164.77%
Negative yoy AP while PANW is 428.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
1.75%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. PANW's 53.07%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
-0.64%
Both negative yoy, with PANW at -84.37%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
63.66%
Some CFO growth while PANW is negative at -60.26%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-50.40%
Negative yoy CapEx while PANW is 2.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
99.03%
Acquisition growth of 99.03% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-138.39%
Negative yoy purchasing while PANW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-12.33%
We reduce yoy sales while PANW is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
223.63%
Growth of 223.63% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-119.85%
We reduce yoy invests while PANW stands at 2.61%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
65.30%
Issuance growth of 65.30% 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.
1.82%
We have some buyback growth while PANW is negative at -17475.00%. John Neff sees a short-term advantage in boosting EPS unless expansions hamper competitor.