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.
-0.28%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 64.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
21.91%
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.
-10.09%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-4.01%
Both cut yoy SBC, with GPRO at -4.73%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-153.64%
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.
144.29%
AR growth while GPRO is negative at -171.20%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-127.11%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with GPRO at -51.71%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-130.69%
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.
-89.91%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-36.37%
Negative yoy CFO while GPRO is 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
48.06%
CapEx growth well above GPRO's 63.37%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-15.89%
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.
115.00%
Liquidation growth of 115.00% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
252.17%
Growth of 252.17% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
85.81%
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.
37.50%
We slightly raise equity while GPRO is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly preserving share count or buying back shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.