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.
-32.49%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 35.64%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-31.76%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 54.06%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-39.65%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 71.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-39.65%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 71.68%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-38.35%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 72.53%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-36.90%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 71.79%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-38.10%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 71.79%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.38%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.24%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-2.69%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-53.84%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 91.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-59.88%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 88.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1061.62%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 37.74%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
68.81%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 37.74%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
35.79%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1879.69%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 72.65%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
12.47%
Below 50% of GPRO's 72.65%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
8.80%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 36.78%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1555.78%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
18.67%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
26.41%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 6.64%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
1164.16%
Equity/share CAGR of 1164.16% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
63.59%
Equity/share CAGR of 63.59% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
30.73%
Below 50% of GPRO's 301.62%. 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.
32.28%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 32.28% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-26.33%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 73.39%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
7.30%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.02%
Similar asset growth to GPRO's 1.02%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
2.69%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
12.53%
Debt growth of 12.53% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-3.31%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-5.78%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
