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.
-2.12%
Negative revenue growth while ACB.TO stands at 0.80%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
21.56%
Positive gross profit growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
123.81%
Positive EBIT growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
123.81%
Positive operating income growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
645.04%
Positive net income growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
22200.00%
Positive EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
22200.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
5.52%
Share count expansion well above ACB.TO's 0.07%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
6.15%
Diluted share count expanding well above ACB.TO's 0.07%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-170.95%
Negative OCF growth while ACB.TO is at 4.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-106.82%
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.
656.29%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 73.05%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
17.13%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-267.86%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-478.36%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO is at 23.69%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-28.16%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO stands at 86.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
440.92%
Positive 10Y CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
122.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
122.65%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ACB.TO's 87.19%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
6526.78%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 898.59%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
522.42%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 189.72%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
56.04%
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.
5.73%
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.
17.28%
We show growth while ACB.TO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.97%
Positive asset growth while ACB.TO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-1.25%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-8.37%
We’re deleveraging while ACB.TO stands at 1.89%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-68.16%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
19.59%
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.