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.
0.96%
Positive revenue growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-116.90%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
1962.12%
Positive EBIT growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
1962.12%
Positive operating income growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-1159.97%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-1118.10%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-1118.10%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
4.74%
Share count expansion well above ACB.TO's 8.30%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
4.12%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ACB.TO's 8.30%. 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.
55.76%
Positive OCF growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
48.79%
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.
773.51%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 18.47%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-31.54%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-3473.12%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-20076.82%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO is at 48.42%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
36.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ACB.TO's 72.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-17455.75%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-5049.26%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-1634.83%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
8676.79%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 429.75%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
394.53%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
44.47%
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.
4.62%
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.
-10.16%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-6.35%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-9.02%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-14.88%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-67.07%
Our R&D shrinks while ACB.TO invests at 62.28%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
3.79%
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.