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.
8.73%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 13.65%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
-3.08%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 26.68%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
1.75%
EBIT growth below 50% of GPRO's 69.10%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
1.75%
Operating income growth under 50% of GPRO's 69.02%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
5.26%
Net income growth under 50% of GPRO's 64.84%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
5.26%
EPS growth under 50% of GPRO's 66.67%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
5.26%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of GPRO's 66.67%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.61%
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.
2.37%
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.
-95.24%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-783.33%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-39.46%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-33.64%
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.
-24.61%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-99.57%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-98.70%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-99.43%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-79.43%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
102.81%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 69.69%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
-77.14%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
33.65%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
129.69%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
42.40%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
29.32%
AR growth well above GPRO's 8.86%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
13.04%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.32%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.59%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.27%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.77%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-6.57%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
