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.
98.48%
Net income growth above 1.5x GPRO's 3.94%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
17.23%
D&A growth well above GPRO's 5.34%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
673.91%
Some yoy growth while GPRO is negative at -103.44%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
21.94%
SBC growth while GPRO is negative at -26.78%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
3.56%
Slight usage while GPRO is negative at -368.34%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
142.00%
AR growth well above GPRO's 251.11%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-92.69%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with GPRO at -84.61%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-78.45%
Both negative yoy AP, with GPRO at -192.28%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
110.34%
Some yoy usage while GPRO is negative at -3470.16%. 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.
68.88%
Some CFO growth while GPRO is negative at -1186.47%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
15.30%
Lower CapEx growth vs. GPRO's 69.81%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
88.74%
Acquisition growth of 88.74% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-78.69%
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.
43.55%
We have some liquidation growth while GPRO is negative at -61.66%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-149.29%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -61.66%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-158.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -58.88%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
100.00%
Debt repayment growth of 100.00% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
-100.00%
Negative yoy issuance while GPRO is 335.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-80.07%
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.