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.
3.82%
Revenue growth under 50% of GPRO's 9.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
4.41%
Positive gross profit growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
3.83%
Positive EBIT growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
3.83%
Positive operating income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
4.19%
Positive net income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
4.26%
Positive EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
6.52%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.45%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.95%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.57%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.49%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-10.09%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 351.06%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-23.89%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 129.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1325.86%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
187.01%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
66.56%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1724.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 140.35%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
168.81%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 140.35%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
71.56%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 140.35%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
2534.31%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
192.74%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
57.35%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1536.22%
Below 50% of GPRO's 15351.18%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
183.13%
Below 50% of GPRO's 15351.18%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
17.45%
Below 50% of GPRO's 15351.18%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
62.48%
AR growth well above GPRO's 20.74%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
15.03%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
6.29%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-3.63%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
18.21%
Debt growth of 18.21% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
9.14%
We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.96%
SG&A declining or stable vs. GPRO's 12.83%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
