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.
9.09%
Some net income increase while PANW is negative at -23.66%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
7.81%
D&A growth well above PANW's 8.64%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
85.08%
Well above PANW's 56.25% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
6.18%
Less SBC growth vs. PANW's 12.41%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-298.63%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PANW is 586.51%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-141.66%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PANW at -148.63%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
242.42%
Some inventory rise while PANW is negative at -5.33%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
98.72%
A yoy AP increase while PANW is negative at -492.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
79.10%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. PANW's 1380.77%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
-1945.45%
Both negative yoy, with PANW at -4.50%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-22.71%
Negative yoy CFO while PANW is 36.28%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-4.73%
Both yoy lines negative, with PANW at -4.03%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
82.68%
Some acquisitions while PANW is negative at -94.73%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
18.72%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. PANW's 96.72%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
-34.80%
Both yoy lines are negative, with PANW at -1.36%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
-216.42%
We reduce yoy other investing while PANW is 71.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-239.86%
We reduce yoy invests while PANW stands at 78.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
99.28%
Debt repayment growth of 99.28% while PANW is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
-45.20%
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.
-5.99%
We cut yoy buybacks while PANW is 96.62%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.