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.
78.11%
Positive revenue growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
56.56%
Positive gross profit growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
56.27%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SAND's 75.41%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
56.27%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of SAND's 75.41%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
48.49%
Net income growth comparable to SAND's 51.55%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
47.06%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x SAND's 35.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
47.06%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of SAND's 62.80%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
0.14%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 15.02%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.13%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 1.13%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-30.00%
Dividend reduction while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
97.45%
Positive OCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
149.53%
FCF growth similar to SAND's 150.02%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
747.55%
10Y CAGR of 747.55% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
260.22%
5Y CAGR of 260.22% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
206.39%
3Y CAGR of 206.39% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
10355.24%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with SAND's 10389.38%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
365.07%
Below 50% of SAND's 10389.38%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
245.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 497.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
9636.81%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 2679.98% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
349.98%
Below 50% of SAND's 2679.98%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
237.90%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of SAND's 358.81%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
3155.98%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 1398.16%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
150.22%
Below 50% of SAND's 1398.16%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
74.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 53.14%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-34.01%
Firm’s AR is declining while SAND shows 0.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.69%
Asset growth above 1.5x SAND's 2.70%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
4.28%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-12.48%
We’re deleveraging while SAND 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.
4.61%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SAND's 79.46%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.