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.
-22.24%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 15.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-20.46%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 18.69%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-24.61%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 107.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-24.61%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 107.19%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-24.72%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 109.12%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-23.38%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-24.68%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 118.18%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.84%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.80%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.24%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-43.42%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-45.48%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1646.60%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 99.65%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
371.20%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 99.65%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
66.98%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 99.65%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
3375.96%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 261.39%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
797.94%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 261.39%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
53.98%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 261.39%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
4468.65%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 680.02% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
384.00%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 680.02%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
31.69%
Below 50% of GPRO's 680.02%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
1872.51%
Equity/share CAGR of 1872.51% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
259.49%
Equity/share CAGR of 259.49% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
41.97%
Equity/share CAGR of 41.97% 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.
-34.74%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 11.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
4.95%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. GPRO's 33.67%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.27%
Negative asset growth while GPRO invests at 19.44%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
5.49%
50-75% of GPRO's 10.85%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
20.51%
Debt growth of 20.51% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
1.21%
R&D dropping or stable vs. GPRO's 18.24%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-3.89%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
