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 / 1.81M (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.
5.83%
Positive revenue growth while FNV is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
12.55%
Positive gross profit growth while FNV is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-10.38%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-10.38%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-79.93%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-81.25%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-81.25%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.17%
Share change of 0.17% while FNV is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.23%
Diluted share count expanding well above FNV's 0.34%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
1.54%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while FNV cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
0.04%
Positive OCF growth while FNV is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
126.84%
Positive FCF growth while FNV is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
222.40%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 87.81%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
-5.56%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FNV stands at 16.90%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-11.09%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FNV stands at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
210.51%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 55.06%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-29.99%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while FNV is at 88.16%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-26.27%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while FNV stands at 36.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
108.33%
Positive 10Y CAGR while FNV is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-94.15%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while FNV is 69.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
103.66%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 15.80%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
254.23%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 73.94%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
23.55%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with FNV's 23.28%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
12.98%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of FNV's 23.70%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-13.85%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while FNV stands at 5.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
77.66%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 12.63%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
118.02%
AR growth well above FNV's 24.38%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.76%
Negative asset growth while FNV invests at 2.01%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.46%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-8.44%
We’re deleveraging while FNV stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
156.46%
SG&A growth of 156.46% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.