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.
2.47%
Revenue growth under 50% of GPRO's 13.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-14.00%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 26.68%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
22.03%
EBIT growth below 50% of GPRO's 69.10%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
22.03%
Operating income growth under 50% of GPRO's 69.02%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-15.00%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 64.84%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-15.45%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-15.15%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.59%
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.
-0.08%
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.
-32.48%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-43.05%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
2.26%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-52.48%
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.
-9.56%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
19.75%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
117.91%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to GPRO's 118.82%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
-37.71%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
27.80%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
116.19%
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.
160.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
110.20%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
8.02%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
167.15%
Positive short-term equity growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.45%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
560.00%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.86%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.23%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.12%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
1.44%
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.
