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.
0.20%
Revenue growth under 50% of GPRO's 13.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
2.96%
Gross profit growth under 50% of GPRO's 26.68%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-11.76%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 69.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.76%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 69.02%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
333.33%
Net income growth above 1.5x GPRO's 64.84%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
333.33%
EPS growth above 1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
333.33%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x GPRO's 66.67%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.40%
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.
0.89%
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.
-10.91%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-35.56%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-50.03%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-23.14%
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.
-31.77%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
224.11%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-53.71%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
44.55%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-91.56%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-81.36%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GPRO is 69.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-94.59%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
21.08%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
118.33%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-11.65%
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.
-1.01%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-6.82%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.47%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.16%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-3.13%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.65%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
0.33%
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.
