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.
-13.12%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with GPRO at -562.80%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-3.52%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with GPRO at -7.34%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
148.59%
Well above GPRO's 286.44% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
-1.19%
Both cut yoy SBC, with GPRO at -7.89%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
39.46%
Less working capital growth vs. GPRO's 167.53%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
-68.99%
AR is negative yoy while GPRO is 371.64%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
2045.71%
Some inventory rise while GPRO is negative at -1084.92%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
101.91%
AP growth well above GPRO's 119.40%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-38.82%
Negative yoy usage while GPRO is 201.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
22.36%
Some yoy increase while GPRO is negative at -55.40%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
4.31%
Some CFO growth while GPRO is negative at -4405.31%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
15.36%
Some CapEx rise while GPRO is negative at -238.12%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-158.06%
Negative yoy acquisition while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-19.74%
Negative yoy purchasing while GPRO stands at 41.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
69.60%
We have some liquidation growth while GPRO is negative at -46.69%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-446.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -60.95%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
106.04%
We have mild expansions while GPRO is negative at -120.68%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
-20.00%
We cut debt repayment yoy while GPRO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
-99.74%
Negative yoy issuance while GPRO is 2510.77%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
28.47%
Buyback growth of 28.47% 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.