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.
-0.29%
Negative revenue growth while SAND stands at 14.97%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-0.43%
Negative gross profit growth while SAND is at 18.82%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-0.43%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-0.43%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
8.35%
Net income growth under 50% of SAND's 90.88%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
10.00%
EPS growth under 50% of SAND's 90.94%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
10.00%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SAND's 90.94%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.26%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 1.40%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.21%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 1.40%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-61.46%
Dividend reduction while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-5.26%
Negative OCF growth while SAND is at 0.45%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
29250.87%
FCF growth above 1.5x SAND's 1123.74%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
369.06%
10Y CAGR of 369.06% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
194.35%
5Y CAGR of 194.35% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
73.48%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 2312.62%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1883.30%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 2726.95%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
271.01%
Below 50% of SAND's 552.39%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
62.94%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 4225.91%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1508.48%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 43.83% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
165.13%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 74.31%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
7.72%
Positive short-term CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
3689.21%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 955.91%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
157.40%
Below 50% of SAND's 1076.67%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
62.48%
Below 50% of SAND's 152.21%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
58.62%
Our AR growth while SAND is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.06%
Asset growth well under 50% of SAND's 0.56%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.94%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-9.00%
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.
-1.09%
We cut SG&A while SAND invests at 14.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.