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.
-33.37%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 20.28%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-34.52%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 55.75%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-42.13%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 9.93%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-42.13%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 9.93%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-42.73%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 14.60%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-42.17%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-42.68%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.80%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 1.02%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.95%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 1.02%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.47%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-57.76%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-61.62%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1138.07%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 0.58%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
140.19%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 0.58%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
38.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 0.58%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
10006.86%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
118.61%
Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
10.66%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
2637.90%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
105.84%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
31.38%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1503.98%
Equity/share CAGR of 1503.98% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
148.69%
Equity/share CAGR of 148.69% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
14.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 14.85% 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.
38.96%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 38.96% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.59%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 39.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-6.94%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
4.09%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.53%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
26.86%
Debt growth of 26.86% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
4.45%
R&D dropping or stable vs. GPRO's 20.88%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-11.04%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 4.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
