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.
-16.22%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 8.98%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-19.15%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 4.37%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-27.75%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-27.75%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-25.87%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-25.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-23.40%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.29%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.23%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
11.26%
Dividend growth of 11.26% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-8.34%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 8.22%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-14.14%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
961.28%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 54.73%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
76.57%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 54.73%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
41.67%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 0.17%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1056.23%
OCF/share CAGR of 1056.23% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
14.02%
OCF/share CAGR of 14.02% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
60.49%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1708.45%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
27.05%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
33.48%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1385.00%
Equity/share CAGR of 1385.00% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
117.34%
Equity/share CAGR of 117.34% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
21.19%
Below 50% of GPRO's 1667.41%. 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.
33.94%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 33.94% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.21%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 42.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-19.73%
Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 61.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.11%
Asset growth well under 50% of GPRO's 4.27%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.73%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
6.34%
Debt growth of 6.34% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
1.95%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.33%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
0.53%
SG&A declining or stable vs. GPRO's 6.57%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
