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.
-4.84%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 13.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-1.12%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 26.68%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
1.35%
EBIT growth below 50% of GPRO's 69.10%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
1.35%
Operating income growth under 50% of GPRO's 69.02%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-26.98%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 64.84%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-29.03%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-26.67%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.80%
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.
1.59%
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.
-72.15%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 115.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-85.14%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 114.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-40.15%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-6.85%
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.
26.37%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
333.64%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-83.07%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is at 118.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
231.33%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
76.19%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-74.56%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GPRO is 69.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
1.34%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
38.62%
Positive growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
54.11%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
13.78%
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.
-0.17%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-29.21%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-3.39%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
2.87%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-100.00%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
3.36%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
0.58%
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.
