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.
-2.32%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 40.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
5.37%
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.
23.31%
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.
2.57%
Less SBC growth vs. ZETA's 10.68%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
147.46%
Working capital change of 147.46% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
196.87%
AR growth while ZETA is negative at -367.30%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-203.63%
Negative yoy inventory while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-250.85%
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.
9.11%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. ZETA's 100.00%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
-138.78%
Both negative yoy, with ZETA at -192.80%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
42.93%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x ZETA's 20.83%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
32.09%
CapEx growth well above ZETA's 14.14%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
-43650.00%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -26.79%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
-36.36%
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.
14.57%
Liquidation growth of 14.57% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
93.79%
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.
-143.68%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -18.84%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
100.00%
Debt repayment growth of 100.00% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
114.93%
Issuance growth of 114.93% 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.
-53.98%
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.