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
Helps investors judge whether earnings growth is driven by sustainable operations or temporary factors. Consistent, organic income expansion can justify a higher intrinsic value for patient, long-term investors.
-10.12%
Revenue decline while PANW shows 2.18% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine competitive position erosion.
-18.59%
Cost reduction while PANW shows 9.28% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine competitive advantage.
-4.85%
Both companies show declining gross profit. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
5.86%
Margin expansion while PANW shows decline. John Neff would investigate competitive advantages.
9.57%
R&D growth while PANW reduces spending. John Neff would investigate strategic advantage.
36.75%
G&A growth while PANW reduces overhead. John Neff would investigate operational differences.
-5.07%
Marketing expense reduction while PANW shows 0.09% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine competitive risk.
76.74%
Other expenses growth while PANW reduces costs. John Neff would investigate differences.
5.10%
Operating expenses growth while PANW reduces costs. John Neff would investigate differences.
-7.99%
Total costs reduction while PANW shows 0.82% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine advantage.
16.89%
Interest expense growth above 1.5x PANW's 1.64%. Michael Burry would check for over-leverage.
13.25%
D&A growth above 1.5x PANW's 4.86%. Michael Burry would check for excessive investment.
-8.89%
EBITDA decline while PANW shows 14.48% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine position.
2.69%
EBITDA margin growth below 50% of PANW's 16.30%. Michael Burry would check for structural issues.
-14.95%
Operating income decline while PANW shows 9.74% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine position.
-5.38%
Operating margin decline while PANW shows 11.67% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine position.
217.09%
Other expenses growth while PANW reduces costs. John Neff would investigate differences.
-11.57%
Pre-tax income decline while PANW shows 7.96% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine position.
-1.61%
Pre-tax margin decline while PANW shows 9.92% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine position.
-8.38%
Tax expense reduction while PANW shows 175.00% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine advantage.
-12.46%
Both companies show declining income. Martin Whitman would check industry conditions.
-2.60%
Net margin decline while PANW shows 1.65% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine position.
-12.35%
EPS decline while PANW shows 0.00% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine position.
-12.50%
Diluted EPS decline while PANW shows 0.00% growth. Joel Greenblatt would examine position.
-0.39%
Share count reduction while PANW shows 0.33% change. Joel Greenblatt would examine strategy.
-0.22%
Diluted share reduction while PANW shows 0.33% change. Joel Greenblatt would examine strategy.