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.
-0.07%
Negative revenue growth while WEED.TO stands at 24.21%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
822.03%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x WEED.TO's 106.56%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-112.41%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-112.41%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
85.63%
Net income growth comparable to WEED.TO's 94.11%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
86.67%
EPS growth similar to WEED.TO's 94.61%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
87.78%
Similar diluted EPS growth to WEED.TO's 94.61%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
11.12%
Share count expansion well above WEED.TO's 8.80%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
13.10%
Diluted share count expanding well above WEED.TO's 8.80%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-125.44%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-88.64%
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.
549.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WEED.TO's 1425.52%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-39.53%
Negative 3Y CAGR while WEED.TO stands at 546.98%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-3850.87%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-216.02%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
25.36%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-2957.33%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-213.57%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-299.18%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
7956.19%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 2992.05%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
304.44%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 170.44%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
30.41%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 11.94%. 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.
3.22%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WEED.TO's 36.69%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-0.36%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
2.62%
Positive asset growth while WEED.TO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-7.54%
We have a declining book value while WEED.TO shows 2.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.45%
We have some new debt while WEED.TO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
207.41%
We increase R&D while WEED.TO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-7.22%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.