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.
10.84%
Positive revenue growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-5.28%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.35%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-0.35%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-86.91%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-86.84%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-86.84%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.19%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 1.03%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.01%
Slight or no buyback while SAND is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
17.11%
Dividend growth of 17.11% while SAND is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
8.12%
Positive OCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
127.02%
Positive FCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
196.24%
10Y CAGR of 196.24% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
7.88%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
24.99%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
192.99%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 9114.76%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-14.53%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
13.51%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-77.12%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SAND is at 96.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-93.99%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-90.63%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SAND is 99.97%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
285.20%
Below 50% of SAND's 1230.50%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
49.04%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with SAND's 51.57%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
18.79%
Positive short-term equity growth while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-42.97%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-42.97%
Negative near-term dividend growth while SAND invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-20.14%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.73%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.66%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-11.30%
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.
-60.99%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.