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.
23.44%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SAND's 6.05%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
60.21%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SAND's 9.11%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-31.17%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-33.15%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-43.00%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-44.12%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-44.12%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.25%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.01%
Slight or no buyback while SAND is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.19%
Dividend growth under 50% of SAND's 3.33%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
25.61%
OCF growth above 1.5x SAND's 11.03%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
-8.90%
Negative FCF growth while SAND is at 26.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
121.58%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 50.44%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
68.26%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 17.49%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
35.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 2.71%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
177.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 61.74%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
139.14%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 37.08%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
62.38%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 19.64%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
38.48%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
12.23%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-70.02%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
63.53%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 34.05%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
34.54%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 48.53%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
15.29%
Below 50% of SAND's 55.45%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
235.15%
Dividend/share CAGR of 235.15% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
103.88%
Dividend/share CAGR of 103.88% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
21.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 21.23% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-47.47%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.52%
Positive asset growth while SAND is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.24%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-8.70%
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.
-11.40%
We cut SG&A while SAND invests at 34.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.