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.
-27.76%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-37.06%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-31.50%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-31.50%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
31.79%
Positive net income growth while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
30.30%
Positive EPS growth while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
30.30%
Positive diluted EPS growth while NEM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.05%
Share change of 0.05% while NEM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.01%
Diluted share change of 0.01% while NEM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-52.12%
Dividend reduction while NEM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-25.13%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-43.96%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
6.31%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
5.48%
Positive 5Y CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-3.20%
Negative 3Y CAGR while NEM stands at 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-5.92%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
17.09%
Positive OCF/share growth while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
7.38%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
28.59%
Positive 10Y CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
188.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
155.80%
Positive short-term CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
72.43%
Positive growth while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
26.47%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with NEM's 27.89%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
24.52%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x NEM's 2.26%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
24.20%
Below 50% of NEM's 56.89%. Michael Burry might see weaker long-term distribution growth, raising questions about the firm's capital allocation.
49.75%
Below 50% of NEM's 633.38%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
70.16%
Below 50% of NEM's 314.05%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-31.31%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-5.56%
Inventory is declining while NEM stands at 1.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.15%
Positive asset growth while NEM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.00%
Positive BV/share change while NEM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-11.95%
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.
-23.88%
We cut SG&A while NEM invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.