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.
-42.09%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 53.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-10.46%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with GPRO at -1.70%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-433.96%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-2.89%
Negative yoy SBC while GPRO is 8.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-360.84%
Negative yoy working capital usage while GPRO is 79.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-42.22%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with GPRO at -337.50%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
106.51%
Some inventory rise while GPRO is negative at -306.05%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
-35.55%
Negative yoy AP while GPRO is 134.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
54.05%
Some yoy usage while GPRO is negative at -119.45%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-198.15%
Negative yoy while GPRO is 73.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-58.21%
Negative yoy CFO while GPRO is 98.41%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
29.57%
Some CapEx rise while GPRO is negative at -76.10%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
25.75%
Acquisition growth of 25.75% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
8.85%
Some yoy expansion while GPRO is negative at -234.18%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
33.46%
Below 50% of GPRO's 390.98%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
253.57%
Less 'other investing' outflow yoy vs. GPRO's 1262.22%. David Dodd would see a stronger short-term cash position unless competitor invests more wisely.
128.41%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. GPRO's 561.61%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-169.46%
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.