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.
6.58%
Some net income increase while GPRO is negative at -82.51%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
2.14%
Some D&A expansion while GPRO is negative at -2.70%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-211.57%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
1.56%
SBC growth well above GPRO's 2.42%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
98.51%
Well above GPRO's 143.75% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
-550.76%
AR is negative yoy while GPRO is 126.52%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
2818.75%
Inventory growth well above GPRO's 195.90%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
456.95%
A yoy AP increase while GPRO is negative at -186.68%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
159.40%
Growth well above GPRO's 300.02%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
519.51%
Some yoy increase while GPRO is negative at -90.92%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
5.39%
Some CFO growth while GPRO is negative at -37.25%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-56.47%
Negative yoy CapEx while GPRO is 87.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-6750.00%
Both yoy lines negative, with GPRO at -10.69%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
17.65%
Some yoy expansion while GPRO is negative at -9.18%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-36.93%
We reduce yoy sales while GPRO is 14.61%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
3.24%
Less 'other investing' outflow yoy vs. GPRO's 10.69%. David Dodd would see a stronger short-term cash position unless competitor invests more wisely.
-128.74%
We reduce yoy invests while GPRO stands at 21.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
6.90%
Debt repayment growth of 6.90% while GPRO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-11.72%
We cut yoy buybacks while GPRO is 18.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.