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.
-1.41%
Negative revenue growth while SAND stands at 1.71%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-9.76%
Negative gross profit growth while SAND is at 3.88%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-6.19%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-6.19%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-5.33%
Negative net income growth while SAND stands at 334.26%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-5.71%
Negative EPS growth while SAND is at 341.18%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-5.71%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SAND is at 326.44%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.14%
Share count expansion well above SAND's 0.16%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.09%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 0.29%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.99%
Negative OCF growth while SAND is at 48.46%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
15.97%
Positive FCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
17.83%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
48.43%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 77.02%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
57.84%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SAND's 55.14%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-6.51%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SAND stands at 5.56%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
61.94%
Below 50% of SAND's 136.23%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
86.47%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 142.58%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
-17.41%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SAND is at 168.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
115.73%
Below 50% of SAND's 1744.19%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
218.03%
Below 50% of SAND's 1411.94%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
76.72%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 28.47%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
24.80%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
23.93%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 3.70%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
44.13%
Dividend/share CAGR of 44.13% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
119.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 119.91% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
82.04%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 82.04% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-46.31%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
61.49%
Inventory growth of 61.49% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-0.33%
Negative asset growth while SAND invests at 6.11%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.92%
Under 50% of SAND's 4.80%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-9.45%
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.
-44.46%
We cut SG&A while SAND invests at 86.42%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.