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.
-20.75%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 3.77%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-17.85%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 6.58%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-22.16%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-22.16%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-21.79%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.23%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.23%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-2.38%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-2.43%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.56%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-40.28%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-41.57%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1897.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 87.31%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
469.68%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 87.31%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
95.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to GPRO's 87.31%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
18438.42%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 56.73%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
1539.97%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 56.73%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
129.74%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 56.73%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
18463.88%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
764.31%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
80.21%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
2135.79%
Equity/share CAGR of 2135.79% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
403.62%
Equity/share CAGR of 403.62% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
106.31%
Equity/share CAGR of 106.31% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-31.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 4.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-13.81%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-8.52%
Negative asset growth while GPRO invests at 10.42%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-5.07%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.01%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
6.92%
R&D dropping or stable vs. GPRO's 20.61%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-3.96%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 65.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
