PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY.TO)
2.000.05 (2.56%)
1.90 - 2.15
0.48 - 2.54
9.88M / 3.06M (Avg.)
-0.59 | -3.40
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
11.91%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of ACB.TO's 18.93%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
229.93%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x ACB.TO's 170.61%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
-19.65%
Negative EBIT growth while ACB.TO is at 525.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-19.65%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
495.53%
Net income growth comparable to ACB.TO's 515.66%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
479.36%
EPS growth similar to ACB.TO's 457.38%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
486.45%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x ACB.TO's 427.44%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-128.34%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-5.43%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
231.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ACB.TO's 18832.04%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-2712.91%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-106697.14%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-432.17%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
2364.45%
Below 50% of ACB.TO's 8514.39%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
4240.51%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 2096.98%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
1153.04%
Positive short-term CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
5805.96%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 2088.33%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
7110.93%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ACB.TO's 5817.46%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
2546.66%
Below 50% of ACB.TO's 7259.78%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
515.88%
Our AR growth while ACB.TO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
55.77%
Inventory growth well above ACB.TO's 33.54%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
22.83%
Asset growth above 1.5x ACB.TO's 14.32%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
23.55%
Positive BV/share change while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
78.69%
We have some new debt while ACB.TO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
25.44%
R&D dropping or stable vs. ACB.TO's 93.50%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
5.88%
SG&A declining or stable vs. ACB.TO's 55.95%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.