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 / 1.80M (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.
1.19%
Positive revenue growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.00%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of SAND's 12.46%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
6.22%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SAND's 10.84%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
6.22%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of SAND's 10.84%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
-25.44%
Negative net income growth while SAND stands at 340.06%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-25.00%
Negative EPS growth while SAND is at 340.71%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-25.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SAND is at 338.57%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.07%
Share count expansion well above SAND's 0.01%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.10%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 0.67%. 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.
6.73%
OCF growth under 50% of SAND's 24.31%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
176.60%
FCF growth above 1.5x SAND's 19.51%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
58.74%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 19.03%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
55.15%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 15.16%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-10.17%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SAND stands at 2.28%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
79.88%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 11.72%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
110.42%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 30.63%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
7.26%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
51.96%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 24.89% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
196.44%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 146.52%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
-26.91%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
61.34%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 22.30%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
37.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 54.19%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
19.58%
Below 50% of SAND's 49.03%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
144.99%
Dividend/share CAGR of 144.99% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
115.34%
Dividend/share CAGR of 115.34% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
33.37%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 33.37% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
80.90%
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.
-8195400.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
0.97%
Positive asset growth while SAND is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.18%
BV/share growth above 1.5x SAND's 0.61%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-3.35%
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.
42.05%
We expand SG&A while SAND cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.