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.
-2.27%
Negative net income growth while PLTR stands at 50.92%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-7.53%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with PLTR at -1.39%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
19.19%
Deferred tax of 19.19% 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.
9.07%
SBC growth well above PLTR's 2.98%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
-1449.42%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PLTR is 259.47%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-142.59%
AR is negative yoy while PLTR is 78.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
290.62%
Inventory growth of 290.62% while PLTR is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
204.59%
AP growth well above PLTR's 15.24%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
39.10%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. PLTR's 134.63%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
880.80%
Some yoy increase while PLTR is negative at -1863.22%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-34.78%
Negative yoy CFO while PLTR is 73.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-5.90%
Both yoy lines negative, with PLTR at -23.45%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
24.01%
Acquisition growth of 24.01% while PLTR is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-26.54%
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.
25.80%
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.
98.25%
We have some outflow growth while PLTR is negative at -33.33%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
7.16%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. PLTR's 55.62%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
100.00%
Debt repayment growth of 100.00% while PLTR is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
-63.74%
Negative yoy issuance while PLTR is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-21.40%
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.