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.
-164.09%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with PANW at -0.08%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-1.45%
Negative yoy D&A while PANW is 17.02%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
-354.55%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
2.03%
Less SBC growth vs. PANW's 9.32%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-4.39%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PANW is 34.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-249.06%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PANW at -304.83%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
0.23%
Some inventory rise while PANW is negative at -50.34%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
63.59%
AP growth well above PANW's 119.91%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
77.69%
Growth well above PANW's 99.05%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
61.29%
Well above PANW's 0.78%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-28.78%
Negative yoy CFO while PANW is 27.63%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-28.04%
Both yoy lines negative, with PANW at -21.77%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-286.42%
Negative yoy acquisition while PANW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
16.41%
Some yoy expansion while PANW is negative at -305.47%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-15.11%
We reduce yoy sales while PANW is 56.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
99.10%
We have some outflow growth while PANW is negative at -1132.53%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
7.55%
We have mild expansions while PANW is negative at -2996.12%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
50.43%
Debt repayment growth of 50.43% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
3.42%
Issuance growth of 3.42% 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.
16.60%
Buyback growth of 16.60% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.