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.
-20.96%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 148.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
0.94%
Some D&A expansion while GPRO is negative at -20.64%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
41.75%
Some yoy growth while GPRO is negative at -51.28%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
-1.97%
Negative yoy SBC while GPRO is 5.70%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-62.68%
Negative yoy working capital usage while GPRO is 281.55%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-132.26%
AR is negative yoy while GPRO is 88.96%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-19.19%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with GPRO at -162.30%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
117.70%
AP growth well above GPRO's 198.76%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
25.10%
Some yoy usage while GPRO is negative at -101.68%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
3.08%
Some yoy increase while GPRO is negative at -45.01%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-31.01%
Negative yoy CFO while GPRO is 585.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
21.72%
Some CapEx rise while GPRO is negative at -65.81%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-262.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
46.93%
Purchases growth of 46.93% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-31.75%
We reduce yoy sales while GPRO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
21.28%
Growth of 21.28% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
77.61%
We have mild expansions while GPRO is negative at -711.14%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-99.63%
Negative yoy issuance while GPRO is 406.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
0.95%
Buyback growth below 50% of GPRO's 100.00%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.