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.
8.18%
Some net income increase while PANW is negative at -61.50%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
5.68%
Less D&A growth vs. PANW's 11.96%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-438.36%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-2.37%
Negative yoy SBC while PANW is 39.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-20.73%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PANW is 0.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-148.90%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PANW at -462.50%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
217.82%
Some inventory rise while PANW is negative at -60.83%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
373.33%
AP growth well above PANW's 61.54%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
52.40%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. PANW's 123.67%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
-3.15%
Negative yoy while PANW is 1.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-34.86%
Negative yoy CFO while PANW is 4.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-49.26%
Negative yoy CapEx while PANW is 10.77%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
2.31%
Some acquisitions while PANW is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
7.51%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. PANW's 80.94%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
-1.89%
Both yoy lines are negative, with PANW at -65.03%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
359.68%
Growth well above PANW's 80.51%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
34.31%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. PANW's 91.95%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
93.09%
Debt repayment growth of 93.09% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
-46.58%
Negative yoy issuance while PANW is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
22.68%
Buyback growth of 22.68% 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.