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.
10.61%
Revenue growth under 50% of GPRO's 124.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
10.60%
Gross profit growth under 50% of GPRO's 118.54%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
22.19%
EBIT growth below 50% of GPRO's 77.02%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
22.19%
Operating income growth under 50% of GPRO's 77.02%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
15.62%
Positive net income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.67%
Positive EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.67%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.40%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.45%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 1.98%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.60%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
51.65%
OCF growth under 50% of GPRO's 130.43%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
56.40%
FCF growth 50-75% of GPRO's 92.12%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
978.85%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 15.43%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
100.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 15.43%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
47.45%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 18.85%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1602.48%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 123.88%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
87.21%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 123.88%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
91.94%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1752.37%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
64.78%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
41.51%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1330.73%
Below 50% of GPRO's 8679.55%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
102.67%
Below 50% of GPRO's 8679.55%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
22.42%
Below 50% of GPRO's 6718.79%. 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.
31.69%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 31.69% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
150.12%
AR growth well above GPRO's 78.18%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
16.44%
Inventory growth well above GPRO's 15.12%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
5.26%
Asset growth above 1.5x GPRO's 2.37%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.79%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
2.47%
Debt growth of 2.47% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
0.39%
We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.19%
SG&A declining or stable vs. GPRO's 6.46%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
