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.
2.01%
Revenue growth under 50% of GPRO's 13.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.56%
Gross profit growth under 50% of GPRO's 26.68%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
54.55%
EBIT growth 75-90% of GPRO's 69.10%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
54.55%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of GPRO's 69.02%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
86.67%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 64.84%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
86.36%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
86.36%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
0.10%
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.
0.10%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x GPRO's 0.90%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
34.15%
OCF growth under 50% of GPRO's 115.30%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
400.00%
FCF growth above 1.5x GPRO's 114.15%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-50.34%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-33.50%
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.
-43.65%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-5.80%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-40.59%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-73.55%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-102.51%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-109.10%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GPRO is 69.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-102.94%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
21.68%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
135.88%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-16.36%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-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.
-12.04%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-2.22%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.46%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.41%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.27%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.42%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
6.79%
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.
