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.
-2.90%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 13.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
4.75%
Gross profit growth under 50% of GPRO's 26.68%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-2.41%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 69.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.41%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 69.02%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
41.10%
Net income growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 64.84%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
41.51%
EPS growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 66.67%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
41.51%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 66.67%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
0.46%
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.
0.46%
Diluted share count expanding well above GPRO's 0.90%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-7.09%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-533.33%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-250.00%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
493.60%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
91.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 6.97%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
46.46%
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.
-108.73%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-110.92%
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.
-12.91%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GPRO is 69.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-22.59%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
90.10%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
31.95%
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.
5.82%
Dividend/share CAGR of 5.82% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-3.10%
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.
-4.90%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
38.92%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.02%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.73%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-23.85%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
17.48%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
4.66%
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.
