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.
-49.41%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 19.76%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-1.07%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with GPRO at -21.28%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
13.47%
Lower deferred tax growth vs. GPRO's 683.33%, implying fewer future tax liabilities. David Dodd would confirm there’s no short-term tax shock instead.
-0.76%
Both cut yoy SBC, with GPRO at -23.06%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-147.16%
Negative yoy working capital usage while GPRO is 49.59%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
161.49%
AR growth while GPRO is negative at -111.64%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
2696.43%
Inventory growth well above GPRO's 207.50%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-1041.51%
Negative yoy AP while GPRO is 82.41%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-75.84%
Negative yoy usage while GPRO is 361.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
17.61%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. GPRO's 65.87%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-56.38%
Negative yoy CFO while GPRO is 35.94%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
12.06%
Some CapEx rise while GPRO is negative at -72.08%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
81.63%
Acquisition spending well above GPRO's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier integration risk or short-term free cash flow drain vs. competitor.
22.30%
Some yoy expansion while GPRO is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
49.81%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x GPRO's 2.32%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
-76.33%
We reduce yoy other investing while GPRO is 1812.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
165.94%
Investing outflow well above GPRO's 0.57%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
-251.24%
We cut debt repayment yoy while GPRO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
21300.00%
We slightly raise equity while GPRO is negative at -98.83%. John Neff sees competitor possibly preserving share count or buying back shares.
10.30%
Buyback growth of 10.30% 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.