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.
-19.03%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
1.61%
D&A growth of 1.61% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-83.45%
Negative yoy deferred tax while ZETA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
6.05%
SBC growth of 6.05% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see some additional share issuance that must be justified by expansions or retention needs.
130.75%
Working capital change of 130.75% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
200.20%
AR growth of 200.20% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
-396.46%
Negative yoy inventory while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-143.28%
Negative yoy AP while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-165.97%
Negative yoy usage while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
103.42%
Growth of 103.42% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might reflect intangible expansions or partial write-offs.
-14.22%
Negative yoy CFO while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
16.44%
CapEx growth of 16.44% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
-64.41%
Negative yoy acquisition while ZETA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-51.47%
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.
103.41%
Liquidation growth of 103.41% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
170.80%
Growth of 170.80% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
75.53%
We expand invests by 75.53% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate outflow that must be justified by returns vs. competitor’s stable approach.
-150.00%
We cut debt repayment yoy while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
38.64%
Issuance growth of 38.64% 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.
-6.02%
We cut yoy buybacks while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.