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 / 3.06M (Avg.)
-0.59 | -3.40
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.
-2.80%
Negative revenue growth while ACB.TO stands at 1.99%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-41.28%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
20.03%
Positive EBIT growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
20.03%
Positive operating income growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-89.15%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-78.84%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-78.84%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
3.24%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ACB.TO's 23.51%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
3.24%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ACB.TO's 23.51%. 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.
47.13%
OCF growth at 50-75% of ACB.TO's 82.95%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
28.93%
FCF growth under 50% of ACB.TO's 77.07%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-6.49%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-45.05%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-449.35%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO stands at 57.67%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
71.41%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of ACB.TO's 98.60%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
-9039.36%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO stands at 97.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-781.73%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
68.70%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of ACB.TO's 98.78%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
88.49%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to ACB.TO's 97.99%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
7068.67%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 132.78%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-27.08%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-0.15%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
-1.16%
Firm’s AR is declining while ACB.TO shows 9.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-3.39%
Inventory is declining while ACB.TO stands at 3.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.72%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-4.57%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-9.02%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
89.29%
We increase R&D while ACB.TO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.66%
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.