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.
26.00%
Positive revenue growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-1.07%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-1.07%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-1.07%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
8.72%
Positive net income growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
8.98%
Share count expansion well above FSM's 0.13%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
8.94%
Slight or no buyback while FSM 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.
22.62%
Positive OCF growth while FSM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
113.34%
Positive FCF growth while FSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
252.80%
10Y CAGR of 252.80% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
46.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 127.95%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-28.54%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
388.16%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with FSM's 369.47%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
38.42%
Positive OCF/share growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-44.68%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
230.32%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 109.51% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-14.41%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-66.75%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
1009.18%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with FSM's 1034.56%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
105.03%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 54.89%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
37.47%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 9.49%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-52.64%
Negative near-term dividend growth while FSM invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
3.32%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. FSM's 12.71%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-100.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.23%
Negative asset growth while FSM invests at 11.74%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-7.41%
We have a declining book value while FSM shows 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-10.63%
We’re deleveraging while FSM 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.
-0.92%
We cut SG&A while FSM invests at 20.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.