PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (WPM)
96.701.20 (1.26%)
95.23 - 97.14
55.47 - 103.81
1.63M / 1.80M (Avg.)
55.57 | 1.74
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.
-8.81%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-8.81%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-197.39%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-197.39%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-197.36%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-198.04%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-198.04%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
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.
-92.39%
Negative OCF growth while AEM is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-92.39%
Negative FCF growth while AEM is at 42.86%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
13.24%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
13.24%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AEM's 60.56%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
8.73%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AEM's 80.69%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
7.50%
AR growth of 7.50% while AEM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
7.03%
Inventory growth well above AEM's 7.75%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
3.74%
Positive asset growth while AEM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.49%
Positive BV/share change while AEM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
9.49%
We expand SG&A while AEM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.