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.
74.89%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 64.84%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify whether cost discipline or revenue gains drive the outperformance.
13.98%
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.
117.19%
Some yoy growth while GPRO is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
61.76%
SBC growth while GPRO is negative at -4.73%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
26.53%
Less working capital growth vs. GPRO's 147.14%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
-33.04%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with GPRO at -171.20%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-18.95%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with GPRO at -51.71%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-60.46%
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.
559.54%
Growth well above GPRO's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
180.00%
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.
64.33%
Operating cash flow growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 115.30%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging operational liquidity vs. competitor.
0.85%
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.
-186.33%
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.
4.68%
Liquidation growth of 4.68% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
26.67%
Growth of 26.67% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-974.24%
We reduce yoy invests while GPRO stands at 63.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
152.11%
We slightly raise equity while GPRO is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly preserving share count or buying back shares.
100.00%
Buyback growth of 100.00% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.