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.
-27.76%
Negative revenue growth while SAND stands at 8.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-37.06%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-31.50%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-31.50%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
31.79%
Positive net income growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
30.30%
Positive EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
30.30%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.05%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 25.96%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.01%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 25.26%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-52.12%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-25.13%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-43.96%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
6.31%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
5.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 63.43%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-3.20%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SAND stands at 10.44%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-5.92%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
17.09%
Below 50% of SAND's 59.18%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
7.38%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 28.65%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
28.59%
Below 50% of SAND's 102.61%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
188.77%
Below 50% of SAND's 402.77%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
155.80%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of SAND's 278.91%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
72.43%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 25.41%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
26.47%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 51.91%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
24.52%
Below 50% of SAND's 76.01%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
24.20%
Dividend/share CAGR of 24.20% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
49.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 49.75% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
70.16%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 70.16% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-31.31%
Firm’s AR is declining while SAND shows 96.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-5.56%
Inventory is declining while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.15%
Asset growth well under 50% of SAND's 190.95%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.00%
Under 50% of SAND's 73.16%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-11.95%
We’re deleveraging while SAND stands at 22591.76%. 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.
-23.88%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.