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.
19.46%
Positive revenue growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
15.06%
Positive gross profit growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
16.70%
Positive EBIT growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
16.70%
Positive operating income growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-306.84%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-306.67%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-306.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.14%
Share count expansion well above SAND's 0.17%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.16%
Slight or no buyback while SAND is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-9.68%
Dividend reduction while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
27.85%
Positive OCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
27.22%
Positive FCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
143.50%
10Y CAGR of 143.50% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
-32.40%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
44.73%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
141.95%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 7454.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-47.98%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
46.92%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-379.09%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SAND is at 217.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-162.02%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-321.70%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
215.88%
Below 50% of SAND's 1268.62%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
26.24%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
13.10%
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.
7.02%
Dividend/share CAGR of 7.02% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
62.84%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 62.84% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-45.82%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4.25%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-3.45%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-9.84%
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.
-1.81%
We cut SG&A while SAND invests at 7.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.