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.
-1.56%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 40.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-18.03%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with ZETA at -1.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
181.57%
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.
4.53%
Less SBC growth vs. ZETA's 10.68%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-13.53%
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.
223.57%
AR growth while ZETA is negative at -367.30%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-142.71%
Negative yoy inventory while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-176.36%
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.
-63.29%
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.
4.21%
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.
-12.19%
Negative yoy CFO while ZETA is 20.83%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
3.61%
Lower CapEx growth vs. ZETA's 14.14%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
97.49%
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.
-2.61%
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.
-16.63%
We reduce yoy sales while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
-55.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -39.54%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
13.16%
We have mild expansions while ZETA is negative at -18.84%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
25.00%
Debt repayment growth of 25.00% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
47.95%
Issuance growth of 47.95% 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.
-146.84%
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.