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.
-23.31%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 64.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-6.76%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with GPRO at -1.16%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-32.88%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
36.96%
SBC growth while GPRO is negative at -4.73%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-135.68%
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.
287.80%
AR growth while GPRO is negative at -171.20%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
387.88%
Some inventory rise while GPRO is negative at -51.71%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
-399.39%
Negative yoy AP while GPRO is 111.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
18.50%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. GPRO's 100.00%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
-80.00%
Both negative yoy, with GPRO at -92.90%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-59.51%
Negative yoy CFO while GPRO is 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
19.84%
Lower CapEx growth vs. GPRO's 63.37%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-41.30%
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.
81.06%
Liquidation growth of 81.06% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-113.33%
We reduce yoy other investing while GPRO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
20.75%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. GPRO's 63.37%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-25.74%
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.