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.
36.29%
Positive revenue growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
57.21%
Positive gross profit growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-181.24%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-181.24%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-57.90%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-53.60%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-60.74%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.09%
Share reduction more than 1.5x WEED.TO's 10.77%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.10%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x WEED.TO's 10.77%. 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.
210.71%
Positive OCF growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-9.01%
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.
-52.57%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while WEED.TO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
4994.38%
Positive OCF/share growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
1997.53%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
733.01%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 733.01% while WEED.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
838.92%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
2455.14%
Positive short-term CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1295.21%
Equity/share CAGR of 1295.21% while WEED.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
2660.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 1402.78%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
6638.11%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 318.50%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-52.39%
Firm’s AR is declining while WEED.TO shows 65.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
43.08%
Inventory growth well above WEED.TO's 27.24%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
30.23%
Asset growth at 50-75% of WEED.TO's 40.91%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
30.94%
75-90% of WEED.TO's 35.72%. Bill Ackman advocates improvements in profitability or buybacks to keep pace in net worth growth.
-3.01%
We’re deleveraging while WEED.TO stands at 46.73%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-13.16%
Our R&D shrinks while WEED.TO invests at 157.14%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
10.77%
SG&A declining or stable vs. WEED.TO's 156.49%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.