Enterprise AI Earnings Quality: Palantir (6/10) vs Snowflake (4/10)

Last Updated: December 30, 2025 Data Currency: Q3 2025 10-Q filings. PLTR | SNOW

---

Why This Comparison Matters

Palantir and Snowflake represent two dominant approaches to enterprise AI infrastructure. Palantir provides the "operating system" for data integration and AI deployment. Snowflake offers the data cloud for warehousing and analytics. Both are retail investor favorites, with Palantir holding the #1 spot in WallStreetBets mentions during December 2025.

But viral interest doesn't equal quality. At $170B market cap (PLTR) versus $55B (SNOW), investors are paying vastly different premiums for these AI narratives. The question isn't which company is growing faster (both are), but which company's earnings are real.

Our 5-pass SEC filing analysis reveals a clear winner.

---

What is Earnings Quality?

Earnings quality measures how reliably reported profits reflect true economic performance. High-quality earnings:

• Convert to cash (positive cash conversion ratio)
• Use conservative accounting (neutral vs. aggressive capitalization)
• Provide transparent disclosure (quantified liabilities, clear risks)
• Sustainable compensation (SBC that doesn't overwhelm revenue growth)

Low-quality earnings look good on paper but don't translate to shareholder value. Aggressive accounting, negative cash conversion, and hidden liabilities can mask deteriorating fundamentals.

---

Executive Comparison: The Numbers

Before diving into company-specific analysis, here's the quantified comparison:

Financial Performance

Metric	PLTR (Q3 2025)	SNOW (Q3 2025)	Gap
Revenue	$1,181M	$1,213M	SNOW +3%
Revenue Growth YoY	63%	29%	PLTR +34pp
Gross Margin	82%	0.7%	PLTR +81pp
Operating Margin	9.2%	-0.3%	PLTR +9.5pp
Net Income	$477M	-$294M	$771M gap
Free Cash Flow	$1.4B (9M)	$114M	PLTR 12x

Earnings Quality Metrics

Metric	PLTR	SNOW	Winner
Earnings Quality Score	6/10	4/10	PLTR
Accounting Aggressiveness	Neutral	Aggressive	PLTR
Cash Conversion (QTD)	Positive	-0.47x	PLTR
Cash Conversion (TTM)	Positive	-0.65x	PLTR
SBC/Revenue	14.59%	~41%	PLTR
Capitalized Software	Standard	$228.7M	PLTR
Goodwill	Minimal	$1.17B	PLTR
Litigation Risk	Low	High	PLTR

---

Palantir Deep Dive: The Quality Winner (6/10)

Earnings Quality Assessment

Palantir earns a 6/10 earnings quality score with neutral accounting practices. This places it in the middle tier—not perfect, but fundamentally sound.

Key Accounting Findings:

Assessment Area	Finding	Impact
Accounting Aggressiveness	Neutral	Standard practices, no aggressive capitalization
Capitalization Policy	Standard	Leasehold improvements ($97M), computer equipment ($70M)
Material Weakness	None	Controls assessed as effective
Cash Conversion	Positive	Earnings converting to cash

Red Flags (Manageable):

• High SBC at 14.59% of revenue ($172.3M Q3)
• $947.1M in unrecognized RSU expense (3-year recognition)
• $1.08B total unvested SBC liability
• Customer concentration risk (top 20 customers average $83M)

Growth Metrics: The Transformation

Palantir's growth story is real. Q3 2025 represents a fundamental transformation:

Metric	Q3 2025	Q3 2024	Change
Revenue	$1,181M	$726M	+63%
Operating Income	$393M	$113M	+248%
Net Income	$477M	$144M	+232%
Operating Cash Flow (9M)	$1.4B	$0.7B	+100%

Revenue Segmentation:

Segment	Q3 2025	YoY Growth
Government	$632M (54%)	+55%
Commercial	$548M (46%)	+73%
US Commercial	$179M	+54%
Total	$1,181M	+63%

The commercial segment is now growing faster than government, reducing concentration risk over time.

Hidden Liabilities: Quantified

Palantir's off-balance sheet exposure is moderate:

Liability Type	Amount	Duration	Risk Level
Cloud Service Commitments	$1.95B	10 years	MODERATE
IP Indemnification	Limited, unquantified	Ongoing	LOW
Operating Leases	Standard	Various	LOW

SEC Filing Quote: "As of September 30, 2025, the total unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to RSUs outstanding was $947.1 million, which the Company expects to recognize over a weighted-average service period of three years."

Balance Sheet Strength

Asset	Q3 2025	Change
U.S. Treasury Securities	$4.78B	+53.7%
Total Cash & Investments	$5.80B	+17%
Credit Facility	$500M (undrawn)	—
Long-term Debt	$0	—

Palantir's fortress balance sheet with zero debt and $4.78B in Treasuries provides significant safety margin.

---

Snowflake Deep Dive: The Quality Concerns (4/10)

Earnings Quality Assessment

Snowflake earns a 4/10 earnings quality score with aggressive accounting practices. Multiple red flags require investor attention.

Key Accounting Findings:

Assessment Area	Finding	Impact
Accounting Aggressiveness	Aggressive	Elevated capitalization, acquisition goodwill
Cash Conversion (QTD)	-0.47x	Major red flag
Cash Conversion (TTM)	-0.65x	Sustained problem
Capitalized Software	$228.7M	Aggressive capitalization
Goodwill	$1.17B	Acquisition-heavy

The Accounting Red Flags

Our 5-pass analysis flagged five specific concerns:

1. Negative cash conversion ratio — Poor earnings quality
2. Negative operating margin — Profitability sustainability concerns
3. Significant capitalized software — $228.7M aggressive capitalization
4. Large goodwill — $1.17B from acquisitions
5. Ongoing securities litigation — Material legal exposure

SEC Filing Quote: "Cash conversion was significantly negative (-0.47x QTD, -0.65x TTM), indicating weak earnings quality."

Financial Performance: Growth Without Profits

Metric	Q3 2025	Assessment
Revenue	$1,213M	Solid
Revenue Growth	28.75% YoY	Decelerating
Gross Margin	0.7%	Concerning
Operating Margin	-0.3%	Still losing money
Net Income	-$294M	Persistent losses
Free Cash Flow	+$114M	Positive but misleading

Note the disconnect: Free cash flow is positive ($114M) while net income is deeply negative (-$294M). This is due to stock-based compensation add-backs. The cash conversion ratio captures this quality gap.

Litigation Risk: Material and Escalating

Snowflake faces multi-front legal exposure following the May 2024 cybersecurity incident:

Litigation	Status	Exposure
Securities Class Action	Active (Federal Court)	Unquantified
Data Breach Class Actions	Multidistrict Litigation	Unquantified
NLRB Contingent Liability	Active	$0-$25M + interest
Regulatory Inquiries	Ongoing	Unquantified

SEC Filing Quote: "In May 2024, we became aware that a cybersecurity threat actor had accessed a number of our customers' Snowflake accounts as a result of such customers' failure to fulfill certain of their obligations under our shared responsibility cybersecurity model."

SEC Filing Quote: "We are named in a securities class action lawsuit in federal court alleging federal securities law violations, as well as numerous class action lawsuits alleging common law and statutory claims in connection with cybersecurity matters."

Hidden Liabilities: Quantified

Liability Type	Amount	Duration	Risk Level
Cloud Commitments	$730M	Limited cancellation	MODERATE
NLRB Contingent	$0-$25M	+ interest	LOW
Securities Litigation	Unquantified	Ongoing	HIGH
Data Breach Litigation	Unquantified	Multidistrict	HIGH

Overall Hidden Liability Risk: MODERATE-HIGH (deteriorating from prior period)

---

The Cash Conversion Gap: Why It's the Key Metric

Cash conversion ratio measures how well reported earnings translate to actual cash. It's the most important earnings quality metric because it cuts through accounting choices.

Company	Cash Conversion (QTD)	Cash Conversion (TTM)	Interpretation
PLTR	Positive	Positive	Earnings are real
SNOW	-0.47x	-0.65x	Earnings inflated by accruals

What Negative Cash Conversion Means

Snowflake's -0.47x cash conversion indicates:

1. Accrual manipulation — Revenue recognition, expense timing, or capitalization choices inflate reported earnings
2. Working capital issues — Cash tied up in receivables or inventory faster than it's collected
3. Quality deterioration — The gap between reported and economic performance is widening

For investors, this means Snowflake's reported improvements may not convert to shareholder value. The company needs to demonstrate sustained positive cash conversion before earnings quality improves.

---

Why Accounting Aggressiveness Matters

Accounting aggressiveness describes how companies make judgments about revenue recognition, expense capitalization, and reserve levels. Companies can choose conservative approaches (recognize revenue later, expense costs immediately) or aggressive approaches (recognize revenue early, capitalize costs).

The Palantir Approach: Neutral

Palantir's accounting is classified as neutral:

• Standard capitalization policies for property and equipment
• No significant software development capitalization
• Conservative revenue recognition for government contracts
• Transparent SBC disclosure with quantified unvested liability

This means Palantir's reported earnings are a reasonable representation of economic performance. When they report $477M net income, it's backed by cash generation.

The Snowflake Approach: Aggressive

Snowflake's accounting is classified as aggressive:

• $228.7M capitalized software development costs — These are R&D expenses moved to the balance sheet
• $1.17B goodwill — Acquisition accounting creates intangible assets
• Negative cash conversion despite reported improvements
• Revenue recognition for consumption-based model requires estimates

Aggressive accounting isn't necessarily fraudulent, but it means reported earnings may be optimistic. The -0.47x cash conversion ratio shows earnings aren't materializing as expected.

Capitalized Software: The Hidden Cost

Snowflake's $228.7M in capitalized software deserves special attention:

Capitalized Item	Amount	Concern
Capitalized software development	$228.7M	Should be expensed per conservative accounting
Leasehold improvements	$125.8M	Standard
Computers and equipment	$68.1M	Standard
Construction in progress	$14.4M	Standard

When companies capitalize software development costs, they're moving current period expenses to future periods via amortization. This inflates current earnings. If Snowflake expensed these costs, operating losses would be larger.

---

SBC Sustainability Analysis

Stock-based compensation dilutes shareholders and can mask true profitability. Both companies have elevated SBC, but the magnitude differs significantly.

SBC Metric	PLTR	SNOW
SBC/Revenue	14.59%	~41%
SBC Amount (Q3)	$172.3M	~$500M implied
SBC Growth YoY	+21%	N/A
Unvested Liability	$1.08B	Not quantified
Recognition Period	3 years	N/A

PLTR SBC Assessment

Palantir's 14.59% SBC/revenue is elevated but improving:

• Down from higher levels in prior years
• Offset by 63% revenue growth
• $1.08B unvested liability is quantified and manageable
• Three-year recognition period provides visibility

SNOW SBC Assessment

Snowflake's ~41% SBC/revenue is nearly 3x worse:

• Creates massive shareholder dilution
• Not offset by profitability
• Combined with negative cash conversion, represents structural issue
• Full unvested liability not transparently disclosed

For detailed SBC methodology, see our Stock-Based Compensation Analysis.

---

Investment Framework

For Quality-Focused Investors

If earnings quality is your priority, the choice is clear:

Priority	Choose	Why
Earnings Quality Score	PLTR	6/10 vs 4/10
Cash Conversion	PLTR	Positive vs -0.47x
Accounting Practices	PLTR	Neutral vs Aggressive
Profitability	PLTR	9.2% margin vs -0.3%
SBC Burden	PLTR	14.59% vs ~41%
Litigation Risk	PLTR	Low vs High
Balance Sheet	PLTR	$4.78B Treasuries, no debt

For Growth-Focused Investors

If pure growth metrics matter more:

Priority	Choose	Why
Revenue Growth	PLTR	63% vs 29%
Customer Expansion	SNOW	125% NRR
Customer Base Size	SNOW	12,621 vs 911
Enterprise Penetration	SNOW	766 Forbes 2000 customers

The Valuation Question

Metric	PLTR	SNOW
Market Cap	~$170B	~$55B
P/E Ratio	~450x	N/M (losses)
P/S Ratio	~40x	~12x

Palantir trades at a significant premium. However, higher earnings quality justifies some premium. The question is whether 450x P/E is sustainable—but that's a valuation question, not a quality question.

Risk-Adjusted View

When adjusting for risk factors, the valuation gap narrows:

Risk Factor	PLTR Exposure	SNOW Exposure
Litigation Risk	Low	High (class actions)
Regulatory Risk	Moderate (government contracts)	High (cybersecurity incident)
Accounting Risk	Low (neutral)	High (aggressive)
Cash Flow Risk	Low (positive conversion)	High (-0.47x conversion)
SBC Dilution Risk	Moderate (14.59%)	High (~41%)

Snowflake's lower P/S multiple may reflect market recognition of these quality concerns. The "cheaper" stock may carry more hidden risk.

---

The AI Platform Comparison: Different Approaches

While both companies compete for enterprise AI budgets, their approaches differ fundamentally.

Palantir: The AI Operating System

Palantir positions itself as an operating system for data and AI:

Product	Target	Function
Gotham	Government	Intelligence analysis, defense operations
Foundry	Commercial	Enterprise data integration and operations
AIP	Both	Generative AI deployment platform

Key Differentiators:

• Deep integration with enterprise workflows
• Ontology-based data modeling
• Government security clearances and compliance
• AIP allows rapid AI deployment on existing data

The AIP platform represents Palantir's AI narrative. While specific revenue isn't disclosed, commercial growth at 73% YoY versus government at 55% suggests AIP is driving commercial acceleration.

Snowflake: The Data Cloud

Snowflake provides data infrastructure:

Capability	Function
Data Warehouse	Cloud-native data storage and compute
Data Sharing	Cross-organization data exchange
Data Marketplace	Third-party data acquisition
Cortex	AI/ML features within Snowflake

Key Differentiators:

• Consumption-based pricing
• Multi-cloud architecture (AWS, Azure, GCP)
• Data sharing network effects
• Strong net revenue retention (125%)

Snowflake's strength is customer expansion—once companies adopt, they consume more. The 125% net revenue retention shows existing customers growing spending.

Complementary or Competitive?

These platforms can be complementary:

• Snowflake stores and manages data
• Palantir integrates and operationalizes data

However, both compete for enterprise AI budgets. As AI spending accelerates, CFOs must choose where to allocate incremental dollars. Earnings quality becomes a differentiator when both offer compelling AI narratives.

---

What MetricDuck Reveals

Our 5-pass filing intelligence analysis extracts insights that standard screeners miss:

Filing Intelligence Capabilities

Feature	What It Detects	PLTR Finding	SNOW Finding
Earnings Quality Score	Accounting reliability	6/10 (Neutral)	4/10 (Aggressive)
Cash Conversion Analysis	Accrual vs cash quality	Positive	-0.47x (red flag)
Hidden Liabilities	Off-balance sheet exposure	$1.95B cloud commits	$730M + litigation
Accounting Aggressiveness	Capitalization, reserves	Neutral	Aggressive ($228M software)
Risk Landscape	Material threats	Customer concentration	Cybersecurity + litigation

View Full Analysis

• PLTR Filing Intelligence — Complete 5-pass analysis
• SNOW Filing Intelligence — Complete 5-pass analysis
• ROIC Screener — Screen for quality stocks

---

Methodology

Data Sources

Source	Description	Access
SEC Filings	Q3 2025 10-Q reports (PLTR, SNOW)	EDGAR
Filing Intelligence	MetricDuck 5-pass automated extraction	Proprietary
Metrics Database	BigQuery filing_intelligence tables	Internal
XBRL Data	Standardized financial tags	SEC EDGAR

5-Pass Analysis Framework

Our earnings quality assessment uses a 5-pass automated extraction pipeline:

Pass 1: MDA Narrative Analysis

• Management tone and sentiment
• Forward guidance language
• Risk factor emphasis
• Strategic positioning claims

Pass 2: Accounting Quality Assessment

• Accounting aggressiveness classification (Conservative/Neutral/Aggressive)
• Capitalization policy evaluation
• Stock-based compensation analysis
• Revenue recognition practices
• Reserve adequacy assessment
• Cash conversion ratio calculation

Pass 3: Hidden Liabilities Detection

• Off-balance sheet obligations
• Contingent liabilities
• Non-cancelable commitments
• Indemnification exposure
• Pending litigation quantification

Pass 4: Risk Landscape Mapping

• Material risk factor identification
• Customer concentration analysis
• Regulatory exposure assessment
• Competitive threat evaluation
• Technology obsolescence risk

Pass 5: Segment Performance Analysis

• Revenue mix by segment
• Margin trends by business unit
• Geographic concentration
• Customer cohort analysis

Earnings Quality Score Methodology

The earnings quality score (1-10) synthesizes multiple factors:

Factor	Weight	PLTR Score	SNOW Score
Cash Conversion	25%	8/10	2/10
Accounting Practices	25%	7/10	4/10
SBC Sustainability	20%	5/10	3/10
Hidden Liability Risk	15%	6/10	4/10
Disclosure Quality	15%	6/10	5/10
Weighted Average	100%	6.3 → 6/10	3.5 → 4/10

Limitations

• Point-in-time analysis: Q3 2025 data only; future quarters may differ
• Proprietary scores: Earnings quality methodology is MetricDuck's assessment
• Market dynamics: Stock prices change daily; quality metrics are quarterly
• Judgment calls: Some accounting classifications involve analytical judgment
• Forward-looking: Past quality doesn't guarantee future performance

---

Key Takeaways for Investors

If You're Considering PLTR

Strengths:

• Earnings quality score (6/10) indicates reliable financials
• Positive cash conversion means reported earnings are real
• 63% revenue growth with improving profitability
• $4.78B Treasury holdings provide downside protection
• Commercial growth (73%) now exceeding government (55%)

Watch:

• 54% government concentration creates budget risk
• 14.59% SBC still elevated versus mature companies
• 450x P/E requires sustained high growth to justify
• Top 20 customers at $83M average creates concentration

If You're Considering SNOW

Strengths:

• 125% net revenue retention shows strong customer expansion
• 12,621 customers provides diversification
• Positive free cash flow ($114M) despite losses
• Multi-cloud architecture reduces platform risk
• Data sharing network effects create switching costs

Watch:

• 4/10 earnings quality score signals fundamental concerns
• -0.47x cash conversion is a major red flag
• Aggressive accounting ($228M capitalized software)
• Multi-front litigation from May 2024 breach
• ~41% SBC creates significant dilution

Quality vs. Growth Tradeoff

This comparison illustrates a fundamental investment tradeoff:

Investor Type	Preference	Recommendation
Quality-first	Lower risk, proven earnings	PLTR
Growth-first	Higher risk, expansion metrics	Consider both with SNOW discount
Balanced	Quality-adjusted growth	PLTR (growth + quality)

The key insight: Palantir offers both superior growth (63% vs 29%) and superior quality (6/10 vs 4/10). This is unusual. Typically, high-growth companies sacrifice quality. Palantir's transition to profitability while maintaining growth makes it the rare case where quality and growth align.

---

The Bottom Line

Palantir wins on earnings quality. Despite the 450x P/E valuation controversy, PLTR's fundamentals are real:

• Positive cash conversion (earnings translate to cash)
• Neutral accounting (no aggressive capitalization)
• Manageable SBC (14.59%, improving with scale)
• Fortress balance sheet ($4.78B Treasuries, no debt)
• Low litigation risk

Snowflake's 4/10 earnings quality score reflects structural concerns:

• Negative cash conversion (-0.47x) is a major red flag
• Aggressive accounting ($228M capitalized software)
• Heavy litigation exposure (May 2024 breach + class actions)
• Elevated SBC (~41% of revenue)
• Still unprofitable at operating level

For quality-focused investors, PLTR is the clear choice. For those willing to accept earnings quality risk for growth optionality, SNOW offers customer expansion metrics (125% NRR) that PLTR doesn't disclose.

---

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. The earnings quality scores are proprietary assessments based on SEC filing analysis. Investors should conduct their own due diligence before making investment decisions.

Data as of December 30, 2025. Next update after Q4 2025 / FY26 Q1 earnings.

---

Explore More Earnings Quality Analysis

This article is part of our comprehensive Earnings Quality Hub, which covers cash flow verification, accounting red flags, and quality screening frameworks.

Related earnings quality research:

• Earnings Quality: The Complete Framework — 3-metric framework, sector thresholds, and red flag checklist
• Cash Flow Quality Framework — 3-metric verification system
• Cloud Security Earnings Quality Rankings — DDOG vs CRWD vs NET vs ZS vs ESTC
• Stock-Based Compensation Analysis — Which tech giants dilute shareholders most