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.
22.91%
Some net income increase while GPRO is negative at -480.93%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
5.52%
D&A growth well above GPRO's 1.30%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-38.11%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-1.59%
Negative yoy SBC while GPRO is 26.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
101.89%
Less working capital growth vs. GPRO's 398.40%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
-582.54%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with GPRO at -183.25%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-624.15%
Negative yoy inventory while GPRO is 152.77%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
798.79%
A yoy AP increase while GPRO is negative at -13.98%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-5.58%
Negative yoy usage while GPRO is 2065.63%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-135.82%
Negative yoy while GPRO is 86.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
80.54%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x GPRO's 2.64%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-69.49%
Negative yoy CapEx while GPRO is 29.91%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
55.25%
Acquisition growth of 55.25% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-48.98%
Negative yoy purchasing while GPRO stands at 36.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
29.60%
Liquidation growth of 29.60% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-181.58%
We reduce yoy other investing while GPRO is 59.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-212.64%
We reduce yoy invests while GPRO stands at 53.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
35.47%
Debt repayment growth of 35.47% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
28000.00%
We slightly raise equity while GPRO is negative at -95.72%. John Neff sees competitor possibly preserving share count or buying back shares.
-9.90%
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.