229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
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.
-1.39%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 13.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.56%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 26.68%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-4.69%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 69.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4.69%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 69.02%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-5.43%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 64.84%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.85%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.85%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.61%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.72%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
5.62%
Dividend growth of 5.62% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
16.35%
OCF growth under 50% of GPRO's 115.30%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
16.88%
FCF growth under 50% of GPRO's 114.15%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
191.54%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
82.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 6.97%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
22.94%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
185.94%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
98.24%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of GPRO's 118.82%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
32.03%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
237.55%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
141.05%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 69.69%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
30.72%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-19.44%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
5.42%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
22.87%
Positive short-term equity growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
98.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 98.73% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
24.90%
Dividend/share CAGR of 24.90% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
12.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 12.27% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.95%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-5.49%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
0.08%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.84%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
3.58%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.70%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-1.16%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
