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.
100.00%
Revenue growth above 1.5x GFI's 0.84%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
100.00%
Positive gross profit growth while GFI is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
64.36%
EBIT growth below 50% of GFI's 11019.23%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
64.36%
Operating income growth under 50% of GFI's 11019.23%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
87.32%
Positive net income growth while GFI is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
87.33%
Positive EPS growth while GFI is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
87.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GFI is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
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.
-292.20%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-292.20%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-100.00%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GFI stands at 8.80%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y CAGR while GFI stands at 66.24%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-100.00%
Negative 3Y CAGR while GFI stands at 79.55%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1164.16%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GFI stands at 115.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1370.88%
Negative 3Y CAGR while GFI is 89.02%. 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.
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.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-7.08%
Negative asset growth while GFI invests at 25.68%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.75%
We have a declining book value while GFI shows 30.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
110.89%
SG&A growth of 110.89% while GFI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.