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.
-39.87%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 40.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
12.85%
Some D&A expansion while ZETA is negative at -1.61%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-143.82%
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.
-0.82%
Negative yoy SBC while ZETA is 10.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
402.45%
Working capital change of 402.45% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
169.81%
AR growth while ZETA is negative at -367.30%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-100.00%
Negative yoy inventory while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-100.00%
Negative yoy AP while ZETA is 224.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-30.43%
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.
83.77%
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.
48.78%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x ZETA's 20.83%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-8.51%
Negative yoy CapEx while ZETA is 14.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-126.98%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -26.79%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
-161.65%
Negative yoy purchasing while ZETA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
11.55%
Liquidation growth of 11.55% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
100.00%
We have some outflow growth while ZETA is negative at -39.54%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
-6317.39%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -18.84%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
18.80%
Debt repayment growth of 18.80% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
339.58%
Issuance growth of 339.58% while ZETA 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.
47.69%
We have some buyback growth while ZETA is negative at -23.83%. John Neff sees a short-term advantage in boosting EPS unless expansions hamper competitor.