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.
1.41%
Revenue growth under 50% of GPRO's 13.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
2.82%
Gross profit growth under 50% of GPRO's 26.68%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-4.42%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 69.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4.42%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 69.02%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-2.52%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 64.84%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.04%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-2.04%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.71%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.71%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.67%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-26.67%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-36.20%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
305.30%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
180.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 6.97%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
41.79%
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.
9.54%
AR growth well above GPRO's 8.86%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-1.24%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
4.58%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.38%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
32.21%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.62%
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.
