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.
-7.66%
Negative revenue growth while ACB.TO stands at 10.08%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-35.70%
Negative gross profit growth while ACB.TO is at 27.67%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
20.21%
EBIT growth below 50% of ACB.TO's 102.64%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
20.21%
Operating income growth similar to ACB.TO's 22.01%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
113.92%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x ACB.TO's 90.72%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
99.57%
EPS growth similar to ACB.TO's 91.14%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
99.57%
Similar diluted EPS growth to ACB.TO's 91.14%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
2.42%
Slight or no buybacks while ACB.TO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
2.42%
Diluted share count expanding well above ACB.TO's 0.12%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
81.64%
Positive OCF growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
77.49%
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.
594.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 51.20%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
323.94%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-161.58%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-776.11%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO is at 39.08%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-559.39%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO stands at 87.86%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
284.96%
Positive 10Y CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
43.41%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of ACB.TO's 83.64%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
-93.73%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
5088.46%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 910.96%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
710.77%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 280.64%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
47.80%
Positive short-term equity growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-13.47%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-7.35%
Inventory is declining while ACB.TO stands at 13.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-3.72%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.42%
We have a declining book value while ACB.TO shows 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-8.47%
We’re deleveraging while ACB.TO stands at 1.81%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-34.39%
Our R&D shrinks while ACB.TO invests at 21.04%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-20.17%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.