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.
10.98%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of GPRO's 13.65%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
15.83%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 26.68%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
291.80%
EBIT growth above 1.5x GPRO's 69.10%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
291.80%
Operating income growth above 1.5x GPRO's 69.02%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
4.95%
Net income growth under 50% of GPRO's 64.84%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
2.94%
EPS growth under 50% of GPRO's 66.67%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
7.69%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of GPRO's 66.67%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
1.44%
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.
-1.05%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
56.80%
OCF growth under 50% of GPRO's 115.30%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
70.95%
FCF growth 50-75% of GPRO's 114.15%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
21.09%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-37.22%
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.
-52.12%
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.
169.78%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 118.82%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
144.35%
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.
3291.06%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 69.69%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
63.26%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
48.84%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-30.01%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-47.69%
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.
4.37%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. GPRO's 8.86%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-39.53%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
6.14%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
8.93%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.10%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-12.05%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
8.80%
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.
