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.
14.97%
Revenue growth similar to GPRO's 13.65%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
-8.42%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 26.68%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
103.26%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 69.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
103.26%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 69.02%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
101.43%
Net income growth above 1.5x GPRO's 64.84%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
101.38%
EPS growth above 1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
101.43%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.80%
Share count expansion well above GPRO's 0.90%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-1.94%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.19%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-43.95%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-27.73%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
454.38%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
92.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 6.97%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
64.15%
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.
-524.87%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-97.15%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
290.54%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
112.65%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
45.42%
Positive short-term equity growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
11.87%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 11.87% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.21%
AR growth well above GPRO's 8.86%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
21.63%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
8.46%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.50%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
169.40%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-40.47%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
