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.
3.38%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of WEED.TO's 5.10%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
44.31%
Positive gross profit growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
143.07%
Positive EBIT growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
143.07%
Positive operating income growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-154.14%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-148.34%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-145.86%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
23.88%
Share count expansion well above WEED.TO's 7.66%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
23.19%
Diluted share count expanding well above WEED.TO's 2.78%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.98%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-48.44%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
82.29%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
82.29%
Positive OCF/share growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
87.74%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to WEED.TO's 94.09%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
-240.94%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-240.94%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
6.64%
Below 50% of WEED.TO's 80.82%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
1674.77%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WEED.TO's 2460.59%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
1674.77%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 1063.14%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
3789.23%
Positive short-term equity growth while WEED.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.
57.85%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WEED.TO's 136.09%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
43.35%
Inventory growth well above WEED.TO's 8.97%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
52.48%
Asset growth above 1.5x WEED.TO's 31.20%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
14.24%
Similar to WEED.TO's 13.22%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
272.38%
We have some new debt while WEED.TO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-50.01%
Our R&D shrinks while WEED.TO invests at 87.80%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-24.57%
We cut SG&A while WEED.TO invests at 35.12%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.