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.
3.09%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of FSM's 4.81%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
6.25%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of FSM's 8.68%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
4.11%
EBIT growth below 50% of FSM's 31.10%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
4.11%
Operating income growth under 50% of FSM's 31.10%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
26.42%
Net income growth comparable to FSM's 24.32%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
25.93%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x FSM's 23.08%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
25.93%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x FSM's 23.08%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
0.05%
Share reduction more than 1.5x FSM's 2.16%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.04%
Slight or no buyback while FSM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-49.72%
Dividend reduction while FSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
8.76%
OCF growth under 50% of FSM's 26.63%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
20.73%
FCF growth under 50% of FSM's 85.70%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
46.83%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 140.96%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
35.78%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 121.19%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
13.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 56.40%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
66.91%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSM's 91.26%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
76.04%
Below 50% of FSM's 152.22%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
25.43%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 118.13%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2617.04%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 162.46% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
100.51%
Below 50% of FSM's 423.14%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
13.76%
Below 50% of FSM's 10411.99%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
59.30%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSM's 115.58%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
37.47%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 14.80%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
20.03%
Positive short-term equity growth while FSM is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
208.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 208.45% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
111.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 111.38% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
21.38%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 21.38% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
35.90%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. FSM's 460.64%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
100.00%
We show growth while FSM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.90%
Asset growth at 50-75% of FSM's 2.92%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
1.34%
Under 50% of FSM's 4.15%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.26%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
15.27%
We expand SG&A while FSM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.