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.
126.90%
Some net income increase while GPRO is negative at -122.89%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-1.33%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with GPRO at -1.01%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
85.39%
Some yoy growth while GPRO is negative at -300.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
17.17%
SBC growth well above GPRO's 10.35%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
38.12%
Slight usage while GPRO is negative at -180.56%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-719.06%
AR is negative yoy while GPRO is 24457.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-593.43%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with GPRO at -139.88%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
222.23%
A yoy AP increase while GPRO is negative at -808.87%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
210.42%
Some yoy usage while GPRO is negative at -100.34%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
933.33%
Some yoy increase while GPRO is negative at -58.02%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
88.39%
Some CFO growth while GPRO is negative at -123.99%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-96.19%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -232.71%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
82.35%
Some acquisitions while GPRO is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
-117.11%
Negative yoy purchasing while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
33.80%
Liquidation growth of 33.80% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
291.18%
Growth well above GPRO's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-255.20%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -232.71%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
81.67%
Debt repayment at 75-90% of GPRO's 100.00%. Bill Ackman urges more debt clearance to match competitor’s lower leverage.
-100.00%
Negative yoy issuance while GPRO is 55.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-44.15%
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.