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.
-6.44%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 8.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
30.75%
D&A growth well above ZETA's 6.52%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-9.57%
Negative yoy deferred tax while ZETA stands at 123.81%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
15.78%
SBC growth while ZETA is negative at -10.63%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-652.43%
Both reduce yoy usage, with ZETA at -8.94%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-126.98%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with ZETA at -553.55%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
340.33%
Inventory growth of 340.33% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-31.33%
Negative yoy AP while ZETA is 186.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-120.81%
Negative yoy usage while ZETA is 89.52%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
103.76%
Well above ZETA's 108.07%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-51.84%
Negative yoy CFO while ZETA is 2.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
0.14%
Lower CapEx growth vs. ZETA's 22.58%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
-94.56%
Negative yoy acquisition while ZETA stands at 84.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-131.38%
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.
24.86%
Liquidation growth of 24.86% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
65.00%
Growth well above ZETA's 18.24%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-128.29%
We reduce yoy invests while ZETA stands at 60.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
25.00%
We repay more while ZETA is negative at -199.93%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
-57.74%
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.
2.05%
Buyback growth below 50% of ZETA's 78.49%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.