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.
25.06%
Net income growth at 50-75% of ZETA's 40.68%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
32.18%
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.
-143.56%
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.
-6.93%
Negative yoy SBC while ZETA is 10.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-37.44%
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.
-173.67%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with ZETA at -367.30%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
254.27%
Inventory growth of 254.27% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
318.12%
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.
96.22%
Growth well above ZETA's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-7.78%
Both negative yoy, with ZETA at -192.80%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-46.22%
Negative yoy CFO while ZETA is 20.83%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-40.70%
Negative yoy CapEx while ZETA is 14.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-826.67%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -26.79%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
11.12%
Purchases growth of 11.12% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
20.42%
Liquidation growth of 20.42% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
360.94%
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.
77.79%
We have mild expansions while ZETA is negative at -18.84%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
41.20%
Debt repayment growth of 41.20% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
-42.36%
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.
3.43%
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.