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.
9.90%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 13.65%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
15.59%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 26.68%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
-46.86%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 69.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-46.86%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 69.02%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
43.40%
Net income growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 64.84%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
42.86%
EPS growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 66.67%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
41.07%
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.
0.21%
Share reduction more than 1.5x GPRO's 0.90%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
1.22%
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.
-30.96%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-28.76%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
14.75%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-40.11%
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.
-50.61%
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.
-47.89%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
8.43%
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.
228.55%
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.
300.30%
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.
-19.02%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-37.42%
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.
-4.40%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-67.95%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
7.06%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
16.86%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.11%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
18.72%
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.
