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.
41.35%
Some net income increase while GPRO is negative at -176.93%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
23.28%
D&A growth well above GPRO's 29.99%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-89.79%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
15.91%
SBC growth well above GPRO's 0.71%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
117.69%
Slight usage while GPRO is negative at -12810.50%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
156.51%
AR growth while GPRO is negative at -44.67%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-155.41%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with GPRO at -136.99%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-141.85%
Both negative yoy AP, with GPRO at -119.96%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
-727.12%
Both reduce yoy usage, with GPRO at -29.71%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-58.82%
Negative yoy while GPRO is 518.70%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
36.71%
Some CFO growth while GPRO is negative at -234.23%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-10.33%
Negative yoy CapEx while GPRO is 74.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
42.41%
Acquisition growth of 42.41% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
50.97%
Purchases well above GPRO's 83.78%. Michael Burry would see major cash outflow into securities vs. competitor’s approach, risking near-term FCF.
6.73%
Below 50% of GPRO's 151.56%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
74.77%
We have some outflow growth while GPRO is negative at -113.18%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
294.74%
Investing outflow well above GPRO's 96.37%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
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 9931.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
53.96%
Buyback growth of 53.96% 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.