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.
-1.89%
Negative net income growth while ZETA stands at 29.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
51.98%
Some D&A expansion while ZETA is negative at -5.65%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-199.65%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
12.80%
SBC growth while ZETA is negative at -0.91%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-525.97%
Both reduce yoy usage, with ZETA at -78.72%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-126.74%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with ZETA at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
391.88%
Inventory growth of 391.88% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-307.66%
Negative yoy AP while ZETA is 56.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
32.42%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. ZETA's 103.50%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
1314.29%
Some yoy increase while ZETA is negative at -101.56%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-38.35%
Negative yoy CFO while ZETA is 26.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
1.84%
Lower CapEx growth vs. ZETA's 28.56%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
-5383.05%
Negative yoy acquisition while ZETA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
49.67%
Purchases growth of 49.67% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-72.68%
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.
237.17%
We have some outflow growth while ZETA is negative at -25.42%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
-14399.20%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -19.77%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
-94.40%
We cut debt repayment yoy while ZETA is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
-61.90%
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.
17.20%
We have some buyback growth while ZETA is negative at -42.83%. John Neff sees a short-term advantage in boosting EPS unless expansions hamper competitor.