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.
-27.76%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-37.06%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-31.50%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-31.50%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
31.79%
Positive net income growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
30.30%
Positive EPS growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
30.30%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.05%
Slight or no buybacks while AEM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.01%
Slight or no buyback while AEM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-52.12%
Dividend reduction while AEM stands at 0.78%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-25.13%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-43.96%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
6.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AEM's 1.85%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
5.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AEM's 27.07%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-3.20%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AEM stands at 11.15%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-5.92%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AEM stands at 8.60%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
17.09%
Below 50% of AEM's 50.75%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
7.38%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
28.59%
Positive 10Y CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
188.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
155.80%
Positive short-term CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
72.43%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with AEM's 79.08%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
26.47%
Below 50% of AEM's 66.66%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
24.52%
Below 50% of AEM's 76.60%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
24.20%
Below 50% of AEM's 102.97%. Michael Burry might see weaker long-term distribution growth, raising questions about the firm's capital allocation.
49.75%
Below 50% of AEM's 336.89%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
70.16%
Below 50% of AEM's 259.56%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-31.31%
Firm’s AR is declining while AEM shows 249.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-5.56%
Inventory is declining while AEM stands at 15.89%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.15%
Asset growth above 1.5x AEM's 0.38%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.00%
Positive BV/share change while AEM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-11.95%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-23.88%
We cut SG&A while AEM invests at 0.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.