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.
-5.49%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with GPRO at -83.12%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
5.54%
Some D&A expansion while GPRO is negative at -0.30%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-661.70%
Negative yoy deferred tax while GPRO stands at 98.66%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-0.77%
Negative yoy SBC while GPRO is 11.73%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
61.89%
Less working capital growth vs. GPRO's 1199.91%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
-954.41%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with GPRO at -483.29%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-11092.31%
Negative yoy inventory while GPRO is 343.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
6588.15%
AP growth well above GPRO's 82.89%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-164.58%
Negative yoy usage while GPRO is 190.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
352.09%
Some yoy increase while GPRO is negative at -17.48%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-4.24%
Negative yoy CFO while GPRO is 142.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-53.99%
Negative yoy CapEx while GPRO is 75.02%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-400.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
20.33%
Some yoy expansion while GPRO is negative at -30.10%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-20.22%
We reduce yoy sales while GPRO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-76.62%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -8.44%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
-74.00%
We cut debt repayment yoy while GPRO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
13.76%
Buyback growth of 13.76% 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.