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.
11.30%
Some net income increase while ZETA is negative at -289.44%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
4.39%
Less D&A growth vs. ZETA's 11.05%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-54.55%
Negative yoy deferred tax while ZETA stands at 108.83%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
7.55%
Less SBC growth vs. ZETA's 405.38%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-566.42%
Negative yoy working capital usage while ZETA is 129.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-145.32%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with ZETA at -126.31%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
197.52%
Inventory growth well above ZETA's 279.07%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-89.52%
Negative yoy AP while ZETA is 56.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
45.91%
Some yoy usage while ZETA is negative at -456.72%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-176.56%
Both negative yoy, with ZETA at -1849.67%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-35.27%
Negative yoy CFO while ZETA is 35.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
14.94%
Some CapEx rise while ZETA is negative at -99.46%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
13.72%
Less M&A spending yoy vs. ZETA's 100.00%, reducing near-term risk. David Dodd would confirm the firm is not missing out on a strategic deal that competitor might exploit.
-3.51%
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.
6.03%
Liquidation growth of 6.03% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
115.70%
Growth of 115.70% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
68.93%
We have mild expansions while ZETA is negative at -36.17%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-44.59%
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.
3.08%
Buyback growth of 3.08% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.