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.
-18.00%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 14.46%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-17.90%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 20.58%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-24.36%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 180.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-24.36%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 180.75%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-24.21%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 173.69%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-23.81%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 150.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-23.81%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 141.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.81%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 52.06%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.71%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 75.06%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
9.72%
Dividend growth of 9.72% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-24.25%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 528.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-35.08%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 294.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1522.95%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 100.72%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
367.16%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 100.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
41.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 100.72%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
4143.99%
OCF/share CAGR of 4143.99% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
370.05%
OCF/share CAGR of 370.05% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-0.46%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
10991.26%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 417.48% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
555.95%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 417.48%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
14.31%
Below 50% of GPRO's 417.48%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
2094.65%
Equity/share CAGR of 2094.65% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
386.07%
Equity/share CAGR of 386.07% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
88.05%
Equity/share CAGR of 88.05% 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.
11.22%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. GPRO's 92.08%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-12.85%
Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 45.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
8.03%
Asset growth well under 50% of GPRO's 50.19%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.49%
Under 50% of GPRO's 388.07%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
83.00%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
12.73%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 22.25%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-2.80%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
