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.
44.37%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SAND's 10.66%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
43.20%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SAND's 0.79%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
47.82%
EBIT growth above 1.5x SAND's 6.98%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
47.82%
Operating income growth above 1.5x SAND's 6.98%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
44.74%
Net income growth under 50% of SAND's 10157.68%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
52.00%
EPS growth under 50% of SAND's 10562.50%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
52.00%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SAND's 10375.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.01%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 0.50%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.02%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 2.30%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
3.51%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while SAND cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
45.21%
Positive OCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-388.43%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
51.80%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
60.74%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SAND's 57.54%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
11.68%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
57.33%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 20.46%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
124.71%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 65.89%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
18.55%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
41.52%
Below 50% of SAND's 118.80%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
2319.88%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 430.33%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
6.30%
Below 50% of SAND's 48.08%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
62.87%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 28.78%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
31.82%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 46.57%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
20.68%
Below 50% of SAND's 42.96%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
68.43%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.43% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
95.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 95.52% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
45.29%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 45.29% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-1.94%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-43.80%
Inventory is declining while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.74%
Asset growth above 1.5x SAND's 0.25%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
1.55%
BV/share growth above 1.5x SAND's 0.89%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-0.75%
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.
26.62%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SAND's 68.53%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.