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.
11.79%
Positive revenue growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-46.43%
Negative gross profit growth while ACB.TO is at 124.22%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-309.91%
Negative EBIT growth while ACB.TO is at 95.63%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-309.91%
Negative operating income growth while ACB.TO is at 84.05%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-2284.85%
Negative net income growth while ACB.TO stands at 94.59%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2260.25%
Negative EPS growth while ACB.TO is at 94.96%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-2260.25%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ACB.TO is at 94.96%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.61%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ACB.TO's 6.54%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.61%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ACB.TO's 5.46%. 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.
104.19%
Positive OCF growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
80.26%
Positive FCF growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
946.12%
5Y CAGR of 946.12% while ACB.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
538.59%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 108.42%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-84.89%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
65.84%
Positive OCF/share growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
261.74%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-5501.82%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-4443.43%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-289.78%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
3122.11%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 1305.11%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
403.50%
Below 50% of ACB.TO's 5774.83%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-8.22%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while ACB.TO is at 123.70%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
-4.56%
Firm’s AR is declining while ACB.TO shows 36.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.73%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ACB.TO's 17.47%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
13.71%
Positive asset growth while ACB.TO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.38%
Positive BV/share change while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
29.90%
We have some new debt while ACB.TO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
88.66%
We increase R&D while ACB.TO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
18.88%
SG&A growth well above ACB.TO's 23.18%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.