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.
74.01%
Some net income increase while GPRO is negative at -74.73%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
20.25%
D&A growth well above GPRO's 8.08%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
190.60%
Well above GPRO's 95.32% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
22.70%
SBC growth well above GPRO's 14.04%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
283.07%
Slight usage while GPRO is negative at -102.96%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
74.24%
AR growth is negative or stable vs. GPRO's 213.19%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd would confirm it doesn't hamper sales volume.
-434.33%
Negative yoy inventory while GPRO is 373.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
15.69%
A yoy AP increase while GPRO is negative at -190.31%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
2387.27%
Some yoy usage while GPRO is negative at -59.57%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
128.81%
Some CFO growth while GPRO is negative at -78.48%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
11.36%
Some CapEx rise while GPRO is negative at -25.46%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-890.57%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -9.89%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
-87.53%
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.
24.72%
Liquidation growth of 24.72% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-82.14%
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.
-2571.85%
We reduce yoy invests while GPRO stands at 29.40%. 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.
-31.28%
Negative yoy issuance while GPRO is 59.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-2.42%
We cut yoy buybacks while GPRO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.