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.
-14.98%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with PANW at -6.81%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-0.39%
Negative yoy D&A while PANW is 8.14%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
-19.43%
Negative yoy deferred tax while PANW stands at 1991.46%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
1.26%
Less SBC growth vs. PANW's 5.91%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
74.83%
Well above PANW's 15.15% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
208.20%
AR growth well above PANW's 19.74%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-140.19%
Negative yoy inventory while PANW is 148.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-384.67%
Both negative yoy AP, with PANW at -177.99%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
7.70%
Some yoy usage while PANW is negative at -16.98%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
3.43%
Well above PANW's 1.63%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
120.51%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x PANW's 13.54%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
6.64%
Some CapEx rise while PANW is negative at -61.10%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
94.20%
Acquisition growth of 94.20% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-57.66%
Negative yoy purchasing while PANW stands at 76.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
43.94%
At 50-75% of PANW's 61.88%. Martin Whitman questions partial disadvantage if competitor monetizes investments more efficiently.
-240.34%
We reduce yoy other investing while PANW is 105.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-16.22%
We reduce yoy invests while PANW stands at 102.39%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-37.04%
We cut debt repayment yoy while PANW is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
20.66%
Issuance growth of 20.66% 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.
-139.21%
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.