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.
-10.86%
Negative net income growth while PANW stands at 21.71%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
7.92%
D&A growth well above PANW's 2.07%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-208.20%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
0.47%
SBC growth while PANW is negative at -6.71%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
132.15%
Slight usage while PANW is negative at -72.69%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
115.46%
AR growth while PANW is negative at -105.85%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-170.81%
Negative yoy inventory while PANW is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
121.28%
A yoy AP increase while PANW is negative at -136.94%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
142.54%
Growth well above PANW's 18.22%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
134.20%
Well above PANW's 7.05%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
75.32%
Some CFO growth while PANW is negative at -19.29%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
8.95%
Lower CapEx growth vs. PANW's 52.54%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
-2102.24%
Negative yoy acquisition while PANW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-248.22%
Negative yoy purchasing while PANW stands at 60.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
118.36%
We have some liquidation growth while PANW is negative at -23.73%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-1226.97%
We reduce yoy other investing while PANW is 141.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-1292.85%
We reduce yoy invests while PANW stands at 115.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
63.92%
Issuance growth of 63.92% 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.
-18.69%
We cut yoy buybacks while PANW is 97.96%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.