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.
8.49%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 13.65%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
14.85%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 26.68%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
89.30%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 69.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
89.30%
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.
94.85%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 64.84%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
94.85%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
94.85%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
0.71%
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.
0.71%
Diluted share count expanding well above GPRO's 0.90%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-288.99%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-327.96%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
169.96%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-3.78%
Negative 5Y CAGR while GPRO stands at 6.97%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-24.09%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-184.29%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-236.31%
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.
-138.06%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GPRO is 69.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-135.41%
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.
-45.65%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-49.95%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-100.00%
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.
5.05%
AR growth well above GPRO's 8.86%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
4.91%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-3.25%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-4.38%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.65%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-80.43%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-11.78%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
