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.
50.22%
Net income growth similar to PLTR's 50.92%. Walter Schloss would find parallel expansions or market conditions in both firms’ profitability.
-4.92%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with PLTR at -1.39%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
102.40%
Deferred tax of 102.40% while PLTR is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
5.87%
SBC growth well above PLTR's 2.98%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
8.23%
Less working capital growth vs. PLTR's 259.47%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
218.07%
AR growth well above PLTR's 78.85%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-551.56%
Negative yoy inventory while PLTR is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-2505.88%
Negative yoy AP while PLTR is 15.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-47.18%
Negative yoy usage while PLTR is 134.63%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-3.14%
Both negative yoy, with PLTR at -1863.22%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
36.45%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of PLTR's 73.48%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
18.53%
Some CapEx rise while PLTR is negative at -23.45%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
61.90%
Acquisition growth of 61.90% while PLTR is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-89.99%
Negative yoy purchasing while PLTR stands at 48.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
79.59%
We have some liquidation growth while PLTR is negative at -13.83%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-7.69%
Both yoy lines negative, with PLTR at -33.33%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-83.36%
We reduce yoy invests while PLTR stands at 55.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-800.00%
We cut debt repayment yoy while PLTR is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
39.31%
Issuance growth of 39.31% while PLTR 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.
-18.63%
Both yoy lines negative, with PLTR at -3.32%. Martin Whitman would see an overall reduced environment for buybacks in the niche or cyclical factor driving capital usage.