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.
-38.39%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 40.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-14.38%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with ZETA at -1.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-121.30%
Negative yoy deferred tax while ZETA stands at 53.19%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-478.19%
Negative yoy SBC while ZETA is 10.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-194.74%
Negative yoy working capital usage while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-169.48%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with ZETA at -367.30%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-204.19%
Negative yoy usage while ZETA is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
206.25%
Some yoy increase while ZETA is negative at -192.80%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-39.62%
Negative yoy CFO while ZETA is 20.83%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-77.87%
Negative yoy CapEx while ZETA is 14.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-1480.49%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -26.79%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
2.25%
Purchases growth of 2.25% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
24.84%
Liquidation growth of 24.84% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-191.19%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -39.54%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
110.37%
We have mild expansions while ZETA is negative at -18.84%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-816.58%
Negative yoy issuance while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-4.93%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -23.83%. Martin Whitman would see an overall reduced environment for buybacks in the niche or cyclical factor driving capital usage.