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.
0.32%
Net income growth under 50% of ZETA's 38.09%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
1.14%
Some D&A expansion while ZETA is negative at -2.88%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
22.27%
Well above ZETA's 2.13% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
-4.42%
Both cut yoy SBC, with ZETA at -9.55%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
124.49%
Less working capital growth vs. ZETA's 255.95%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
31.28%
AR growth of 31.28% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
-82.36%
Negative yoy inventory while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
125.70%
Lower AP growth vs. ZETA's 343.81%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
157.79%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. ZETA's 33075.00%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
7943.43%
Some yoy increase while ZETA is negative at -1090.89%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
69.29%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x ZETA's 10.58%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-12.50%
Negative yoy CapEx while ZETA is 149.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
97.58%
Acquisition growth of 97.58% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
48.73%
Purchases growth of 48.73% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-7.98%
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.
-195.10%
Both yoy lines negative, with ZETA at -165.05%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
85.12%
Investing outflow well above ZETA's 22.36%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
-210.25%
We cut debt repayment yoy while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
100.00%
Issuance growth of 100.00% 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.
-5.33%
We cut yoy buybacks while ZETA is 20.94%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.