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.
16.97%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 13.65%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
17.54%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 26.68%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
72.09%
EBIT growth similar to GPRO's 69.10%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
72.09%
Operating income growth similar to GPRO's 69.02%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
43.18%
Net income growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 64.84%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
40.91%
EPS growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 66.67%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
42.86%
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.
0.07%
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.
1.56%
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.
200.00%
OCF growth above 1.5x GPRO's 115.30%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
1066.67%
FCF growth above 1.5x GPRO's 114.15%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-47.56%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-12.44%
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.
85.31%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-61.80%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-26.70%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
1667.12%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1.65%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-69.06%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GPRO is 69.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
128.31%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
36.10%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
68.07%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
8.51%
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.
-23.50%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
58.93%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.29%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.46%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.66%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
7.21%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
9.24%
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.
