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.
13.59%
Revenue growth similar to GPRO's 13.65%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
19.90%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 26.68%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
-23.08%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 69.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-23.08%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 69.02%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
63.97%
Net income growth comparable to GPRO's 64.84%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
62.35%
EPS growth similar to GPRO's 66.67%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
62.35%
Similar diluted EPS growth to GPRO's 66.67%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
1.18%
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.
1.18%
Diluted share count expanding well above GPRO's 0.90%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-3.14%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
87.16%
OCF growth at 75-90% of GPRO's 115.30%. Bill Ackman would demand better working capital management or cost discipline.
109.40%
FCF growth similar to GPRO's 114.15%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
438.95%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
102.73%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 6.97%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
52.62%
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.
85.48%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 118.82%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
48.74%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
61.05%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of GPRO's 69.69%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
13.68%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
79.75%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
33.75%
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.
6.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.91% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-1.04%
Negative near-term dividend growth while GPRO invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
1.14%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. GPRO's 8.86%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-0.37%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
4.34%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
6.26%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-14.07%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-7.11%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
19.82%
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.
