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.
11.94%
Some net income increase while ZETA is negative at -241.77%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
15.72%
D&A growth well above ZETA's 5.25%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-25.15%
Negative yoy deferred tax while ZETA stands at 96.71%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
5.04%
SBC growth while ZETA is negative at -2.38%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-88.08%
Negative yoy working capital usage while ZETA is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
205.97%
AR growth well above ZETA's 255.63%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-778.18%
Negative yoy inventory while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-121.79%
Negative yoy AP while ZETA is 55.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-173.54%
Both reduce yoy usage, with ZETA at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-100.51%
Both negative yoy, with ZETA at -22.88%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-8.11%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with ZETA at -20.34%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
-7.57%
Negative yoy CapEx while ZETA is 77.57%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-37.78%
Negative yoy acquisition while ZETA stands at 99.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
42.78%
Purchases growth of 42.78% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
14.64%
Liquidation growth of 14.64% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-139.01%
We reduce yoy other investing while ZETA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-2.38%
We reduce yoy invests while ZETA stands at 89.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
52.09%
Debt repayment growth of 52.09% while ZETA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
32.21%
Lower share issuance yoy vs. ZETA's 100.00%, implying less dilution. David Dodd would confirm the firm still has enough capital for expansions.
2.45%
Buyback growth below 50% of ZETA's 13.53%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.