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.
-15.06%
Negative revenue growth while FNV stands at 2.23%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-15.06%
Negative gross profit growth while FNV is at 6.01%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-1735.83%
Negative EBIT growth while FNV is at 19.38%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-1735.83%
Negative operating income growth while FNV is at 8.68%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-3021.48%
Negative net income growth while FNV stands at 20.08%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2983.33%
Negative EPS growth while FNV is at 17.43%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-2983.33%
Negative diluted EPS growth while FNV is at 17.43%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
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.
-1836.26%
Negative OCF growth while FNV is at 48.94%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-1836.26%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-10.91%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while FNV stands at 177.64%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-10.91%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FNV stands at 85.48%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-10.91%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FNV stands at 6.49%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
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.
8.40%
Our AR growth while FNV is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
6.46%
We show growth while FNV is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-26.32%
Negative asset growth while FNV invests at 5.52%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-26.93%
We have a declining book value while FNV shows 4.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation 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.
-0.28%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.