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.
3.44%
Revenue growth under 50% of SAND's 8.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.52%
Negative gross profit growth while SAND is at 16.25%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
3.37%
EBIT growth below 50% of SAND's 11.41%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
3.37%
Operating income growth under 50% of SAND's 11.41%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
116.27%
Net income growth above 1.5x SAND's 11.67%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
116.67%
EPS growth above 1.5x SAND's 26.67%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
116.67%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x SAND's 26.67%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.06%
Dividend growth of 0.06% while SAND is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-2.98%
Negative OCF growth while SAND is at 8.88%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-154.52%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
13.83%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
5.51%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 43.70%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
39.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 59.67%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-6.33%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
9.59%
Below 50% of SAND's 53.85%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
77.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to SAND's 72.06%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
58.27%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
2532.91%
Below 50% of SAND's 30977.22%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
4117.56%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 151.46%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
84.86%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 35.14%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
24.04%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
19.25%
Positive short-term equity growth while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
41.31%
Dividend/share CAGR of 41.31% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
147.79%
Dividend/share CAGR of 147.79% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
64.03%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 64.03% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
7.97%
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.
42.63%
Inventory growth of 42.63% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
4.12%
Positive asset growth while SAND is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.09%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-6.08%
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.
16.95%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SAND's 34.49%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.