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.
244.60%
Net income growth above 1.5x PANW's 15.82%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
-2.14%
Negative yoy D&A while PANW is 6.88%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
111.34%
Well above PANW's 155.35% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
3.06%
Less SBC growth vs. PANW's 10.76%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
3.28%
Less working capital growth vs. PANW's 23.88%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
217.03%
AR growth well above PANW's 125.88%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-118.41%
Negative yoy inventory while PANW is 229.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
4.93%
Lower AP growth vs. PANW's 1206.53%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
-57.68%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PANW at -53.12%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-163.86%
Negative yoy while PANW is 0.80%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
26.09%
Operating cash flow growth at 75-90% of PANW's 31.78%. Bill Ackman would recommend further refinements to match competitor’s CFO gains.
23.86%
Some CapEx rise while PANW is negative at -62.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
37.70%
Less M&A spending yoy vs. PANW's 228.90%, reducing near-term risk. David Dodd would confirm the firm is not missing out on a strategic deal that competitor might exploit.
-48.74%
Both yoy lines negative, with PANW at -59.59%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
51.26%
At 50-75% of PANW's 79.30%. Martin Whitman questions partial disadvantage if competitor monetizes investments more efficiently.
2166.67%
Growth well above PANW's 88.62%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
0.02%
We have mild expansions while PANW is negative at -32.76%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
46.30%
Debt repayment growth of 46.30% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
45.03%
Issuance growth of 45.03% 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.
-11.17%
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.