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.
-7.08%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 13.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-8.05%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 26.68%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
45.00%
EBIT growth 50-75% of GPRO's 69.10%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
45.00%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 69.02%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
-321.15%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 64.84%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-313.51%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-313.51%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.88%
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.
0.88%
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.
196.12%
OCF growth above 1.5x GPRO's 115.30%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
188.21%
FCF growth above 1.5x GPRO's 114.15%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
102.77%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-13.35%
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.
-39.03%
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.
790.51%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 118.82%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-22.96%
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.
-312.94%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GPRO is 69.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-279.89%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
41.75%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-47.94%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-52.57%
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.
-14.25%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-18.16%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-2.49%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.54%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-9.46%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-6.93%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-15.64%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
