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.
-21.13%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 40.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
8.60%
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.
49.57%
Well above ZETA's 53.19% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
-2.17%
Negative yoy SBC while ZETA is 10.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
197.37%
Working capital change of 197.37% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
192.69%
AR growth while ZETA is negative at -367.30%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-144.74%
Negative yoy inventory while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-123.61%
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.
80.11%
Growth well above ZETA's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
22.96%
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.
107.17%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x ZETA's 20.83%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-34.01%
Negative yoy CapEx while ZETA is 14.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-107.25%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -26.79%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
-144.13%
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.
64.22%
Liquidation growth of 64.22% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-92.84%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -39.54%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-354.71%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -18.84%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
81.40%
Debt repayment growth of 81.40% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
112.88%
Issuance growth of 112.88% 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.
83.21%
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.