In general, yes, the size and maturity of a company unquestionably has a large influence on the relative importance of financial ratios within the company. As stated above, the main reason being is that large, established companies often have diverse revenue streams and vast reserves of money. Therefore, even if they run into a deficit or have a rough year, they are more resilient than smaller companies who rely on one form of revenue. Another key factor is that these dips are only viewed as temporary because investors and analysts know that they can rely on the company's overall fundamentals (long-term strategies). Smaller companies, on the other hand, obviously do not have similar safety nets, so a "bad year" can be much more threatening to the future of the company. Well known tech companies like Microsoft and Google are great examples of this scenario because they are constantly looking into developing new technology even if they have a so called "bad year". Furthermore, as companies begin to grow, ratios begin to move from survival and profitability to strategic growth and efficiency. Rather liquidity and debt ratios holding the most importance within the company, return on investment capital and market capitalization to revenue ratios become much more crucial. This is because these ratios hold information on the potential future for the company. In conclusion, as companies continue grow, ratios start to portray different aspects of the company, moving from survival and profitability to strategic growth, efficiency, and market positioning.