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.
0.28%
Revenue growth under 50% of FNV's 6.15%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-82.43%
Negative gross profit growth while FNV is at 7.78%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-95.52%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-95.52%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-362.24%
Negative net income growth while FNV stands at 55.43%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-300.00%
Negative EPS growth while FNV is at 50.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-325.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while FNV is at 50.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
16.15%
Slight or no buybacks while FNV is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
9.54%
Slight or no buyback while FNV is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.52%
Positive OCF growth while FNV is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
1.52%
Positive FCF growth while FNV is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
80.95%
10Y CAGR of 80.95% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
-0.77%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FNV stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
44.83%
3Y CAGR of 44.83% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
25090.08%
OCF/share CAGR of 25090.08% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
89.40%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 89.40% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-966.69%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while FNV is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-585.45%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FNV is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1055.47%
Equity/share CAGR of 1055.47% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
129.36%
Equity/share CAGR of 129.36% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
284.08%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.32%
Positive asset growth while FNV is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-9.40%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
5.91%
Debt growth of 5.91% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
34.39%
SG&A declining or stable vs. FNV's 221.12%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.