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.
-0.04%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 27.17%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
6.34%
D&A growth well above ZETA's 4.88%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-417.65%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-2.62%
Both cut yoy SBC, with ZETA at -41.86%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
139.11%
Slight usage while ZETA is negative at -412.27%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
107.24%
AR growth well above ZETA's 74.55%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-141.75%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with ZETA at -74.36%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
2424.24%
AP growth well above ZETA's 9.54%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
151.29%
Some yoy usage while ZETA is negative at -134.32%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
0.85%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. ZETA's 104.94%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
77.21%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x ZETA's 33.88%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-21.92%
Negative yoy CapEx while ZETA is 30.99%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-1710.12%
Negative yoy acquisition while ZETA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-21.75%
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.
18.13%
Liquidation growth of 18.13% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
22.32%
Growth of 22.32% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-480.23%
We reduce yoy invests while ZETA stands at 30.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
84.62%
Debt repayment growth of 84.62% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
31.13%
Issuance growth of 31.13% 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.
-6.04%
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.