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.
7.87%
Positive revenue growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
18.63%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x FSM's 5.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-2.88%
Negative EBIT growth while FSM is at 6.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.88%
Negative operating income growth while FSM is at 6.62%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-15.44%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-13.95%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-13.95%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.07%
Slight or no buybacks while FSM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.09%
Slight or no buyback while FSM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
7.85%
Dividend growth of 7.85% while FSM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
11.35%
Positive OCF growth while FSM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
142.65%
Positive FCF growth while FSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-35.57%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while FSM stands at 86.34%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-4.69%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FSM stands at 19.99%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
4.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 31.88%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-46.91%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while FSM stands at 21.14%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
2.05%
Positive OCF/share growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
29.22%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSM's 54.88%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
-26.72%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
218.14%
Positive 5Y CAGR while FSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
112.27%
Positive short-term CAGR while FSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
69.51%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSM's 101.75%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
34.27%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 21.24%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
24.94%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 8.19%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
91.37%
Dividend/share CAGR of 91.37% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
78.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 78.81% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
77.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 77.13% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
1.34%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. FSM's 16.05%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-6.70%
Inventory is declining while FSM stands at 11.25%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.62%
Positive asset growth while FSM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.51%
Positive BV/share change while FSM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-8.41%
We’re deleveraging while FSM stands at 5.38%. 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.
104.71%
SG&A growth well above FSM's 27.90%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.