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.
-1.56%
Negative net income growth while PANW stands at 23.94%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-18.03%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with PANW at -21.41%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
181.57%
Deferred tax of 181.57% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
4.53%
Less SBC growth vs. PANW's 16.18%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-13.53%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PANW is 167.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
223.57%
AR growth well above PANW's 193.08%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-142.71%
Negative yoy inventory while PANW is 103.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-176.36%
Negative yoy AP while PANW is 55.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-63.29%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PANW at -56.34%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
4.21%
Some yoy increase while PANW is negative at -89.85%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-12.19%
Negative yoy CFO while PANW is 386.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
3.61%
Some CapEx rise while PANW is negative at -25.53%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
97.49%
Acquisition spending well above PANW's 158.75%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier integration risk or short-term free cash flow drain vs. competitor.
-2.61%
Both yoy lines negative, with PANW at -30.63%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
-16.63%
Both yoy lines are negative, with PANW at -49.05%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
-55.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with PANW at -158.75%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
13.16%
We have mild expansions while PANW is negative at -120.88%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
25.00%
Debt repayment growth of 25.00% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
47.95%
We slightly raise equity while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly preserving share count or buying back shares.
-146.84%
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.