PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
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.
41.10%
Net income growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 64.84%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
27.59%
Some D&A expansion while GPRO is negative at -1.16%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-75.44%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-83.52%
Negative yoy working capital usage while GPRO is 147.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
335.29%
AR growth while GPRO is negative at -171.20%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-483.00%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with GPRO at -51.71%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
291.18%
AP growth well above GPRO's 111.39%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-36.36%
Negative yoy usage while GPRO is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
79.03%
Some yoy increase while GPRO is negative at -92.90%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-533.33%
Negative yoy CFO while GPRO is 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-93.33%
Negative yoy CapEx while GPRO is 63.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-21.62%
Negative yoy purchasing while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
111.24%
Liquidation growth of 111.24% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
100.00%
Growth of 100.00% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
120.85%
Investing outflow well above GPRO's 63.37%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-55.17%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -100.00%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment or preference for internal financing over new equity in the niche.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.