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 / 2.92M (Avg.)
-0.48 | -4.19
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.
0.79%
Positive revenue growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
66.19%
Positive gross profit growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
131.77%
Positive EBIT growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
131.77%
Positive operating income growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
94.53%
Positive net income growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
94.63%
Positive EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
94.63%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.77%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ACB.TO's 8.77%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.77%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ACB.TO's 11.53%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1372.80%
Negative OCF growth while ACB.TO is at 15.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-213.23%
Negative FCF growth while ACB.TO is at 41.33%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2699.78%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ACB.TO's 31663.03%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
995.84%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 141.37%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-10471.05%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-1899.91%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-745.55%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-322.72%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-96.58%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-115.70%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
5649.27%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 1365.27%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
2476.44%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of ACB.TO's 4443.75%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
188.63%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 95.18%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
53.57%
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.
37.86%
We show growth while ACB.TO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.69%
Positive asset growth while ACB.TO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.89%
Positive BV/share change while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
8.09%
We have some new debt while ACB.TO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-72.57%
Our R&D shrinks while ACB.TO invests at 36.51%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
8.97%
We expand SG&A while ACB.TO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.