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.
87.28%
Some net income increase while GPRO is negative at -36.70%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
10.51%
Some D&A expansion while GPRO is negative at -3.37%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-2906.74%
Negative yoy deferred tax while GPRO stands at 16.36%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
10.39%
SBC growth while GPRO is negative at -27.94%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
35687.74%
Slight usage while GPRO is negative at -153.83%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-1.75%
AR is negative yoy while GPRO is 348.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
125.39%
Some inventory rise while GPRO is negative at -32.69%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
-15.02%
Both negative yoy AP, with GPRO at -290.06%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
373.56%
Growth well above GPRO's 210.62%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
54.17%
Some yoy increase while GPRO is negative at -8.85%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
80.72%
Some CFO growth while GPRO is negative at -270.40%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
29.75%
Some CapEx rise while GPRO is negative at -17.99%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-113.58%
Negative yoy acquisition while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-14.99%
Negative yoy purchasing while GPRO stands at 26.98%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
2.00%
Below 50% of GPRO's 166.70%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
53.76%
Less 'other investing' outflow yoy vs. GPRO's 139.56%. David Dodd would see a stronger short-term cash position unless competitor invests more wisely.
-36.69%
We reduce yoy invests while GPRO stands at 91.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-0.46%
We cut debt repayment yoy while GPRO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
-100.00%
Negative yoy issuance while GPRO is 2407.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-29.51%
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.