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.
20.86%
Revenue growth above 1.5x ACB.TO's 2.65%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
30.04%
Positive gross profit growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-72.06%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-130.61%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-61.23%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
100.00%
Positive EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
100.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-100.00%
Share reduction while ACB.TO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-100.00%
Reduced diluted shares while ACB.TO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-122.31%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-232.20%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-100.00%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ACB.TO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-100.00%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-100.00%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
100.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with ACB.TO's 103.88%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
100.00%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to ACB.TO's 101.19%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
100.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to ACB.TO's 103.70%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
100.00%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 49.17% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
100.00%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to ACB.TO's 96.65%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
100.00%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to ACB.TO's 99.05%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
-100.00%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while ACB.TO stands at 98.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-100.00%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-100.00%
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.
17.53%
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.
2.84%
We show growth while ACB.TO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-39.05%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-100.00%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-4.41%
We’re deleveraging while ACB.TO stands at 3.57%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-60.00%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
12.05%
SG&A declining or stable vs. ACB.TO's 27.04%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.