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.
-38.35%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 72.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-21.93%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with GPRO at -1.93%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-5.65%
Negative yoy deferred tax while GPRO stands at 107.61%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-3.11%
Both cut yoy SBC, with GPRO at -14.40%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-187.79%
Negative yoy working capital usage while GPRO is 82.27%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
46.49%
AR growth while GPRO is negative at -136.74%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
65.86%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. GPRO's 299.85%, indicating lean supply management. David Dodd would confirm no demand shortfall.
-478.94%
Negative yoy AP while GPRO is 30.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-726.19%
Negative yoy usage while GPRO is 246.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
123.72%
Well above GPRO's 111.75%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-53.84%
Negative yoy CFO while GPRO is 91.72%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
11.84%
CapEx growth well above GPRO's 4.26%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
-194.12%
Negative yoy acquisition while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
16.07%
Purchases growth of 16.07% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-11.63%
Both yoy lines are negative, with GPRO at -100.00%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
190.38%
We have some outflow growth while GPRO is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
25.73%
We have mild expansions while GPRO is negative at -123.99%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
34.01%
Buyback growth of 34.01% 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.