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.
23.74%
Revenue growth above 1.5x GPRO's 13.65%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
19.02%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 26.68%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
62.45%
EBIT growth similar to GPRO's 69.10%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
62.45%
Operating income growth similar to GPRO's 69.02%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
52.79%
Net income growth at 75-90% of GPRO's 64.84%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
56.16%
EPS growth at 75-90% of GPRO's 66.67%. Bill Ackman would push for improved profitability or share repurchases to catch up.
56.16%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of GPRO's 66.67%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
-2.87%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.87%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
10.94%
Dividend growth of 10.94% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
132.24%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 115.30%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
410.70%
FCF growth above 1.5x GPRO's 114.15%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
229.77%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
229.77%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 6.97%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
71.65%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
12.02%
AR growth well above GPRO's 8.86%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
14.91%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
6.10%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
9.95%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-81.24%
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.
12.65%
We expand SG&A while GPRO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.
