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.
22.62%
Net income growth at 50-75% of ZETA's 40.68%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
-4.47%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with ZETA at -1.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
20.95%
Lower deferred tax growth vs. ZETA's 53.19%, implying fewer future tax liabilities. David Dodd would confirm there’s no short-term tax shock instead.
4.73%
Less SBC growth vs. ZETA's 10.68%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-204.59%
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.
-189.00%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with ZETA at -367.30%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
181.20%
Inventory growth of 181.20% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
154.00%
AP growth well above ZETA's 224.45%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-117.28%
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.
31.33%
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.
-48.91%
Negative yoy CFO while ZETA is 20.83%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
12.94%
CapEx growth well above ZETA's 14.14%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
90.51%
Some acquisitions while ZETA is negative at -26.79%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
20.51%
Purchases growth of 20.51% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
61.57%
Liquidation growth of 61.57% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-38.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -39.54%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
68.33%
We have mild expansions while ZETA is negative at -18.84%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
-22.85%
We cut debt repayment yoy while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
272.88%
Issuance growth of 272.88% 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.
-14.84%
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.