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.
67.23%
Positive revenue growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
69.40%
Positive gross profit growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
89.19%
Positive EBIT growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
89.19%
Positive operating income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
98.48%
Net income growth above 1.5x GPRO's 3.94%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
100.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x GPRO's 4.88%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
100.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x GPRO's 3.70%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-1.27%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 1.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.21%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
2.53%
Dividend growth of 2.53% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
68.88%
Positive OCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
97.01%
Positive FCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
1147.76%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
108.00%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
61.04%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1602.07%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
90.83%
Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
42.21%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1919.13%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
68.45%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
62.02%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1236.03%
Below 50% of GPRO's 11144.98%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
80.82%
Below 50% of GPRO's 11144.98%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
20.85%
Below 50% of GPRO's 260.49%. 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.
33.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 33.81% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.51%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
27.20%
Inventory growth well above GPRO's 24.25%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
2.94%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.56%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.59%
Debt growth of 0.59% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
11.71%
We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
13.33%
We expand SG&A while GPRO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.
