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.
-14.16%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 11.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-15.07%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 23.59%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-23.61%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 132.22%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-23.61%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 132.22%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-20.96%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 148.01%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-20.75%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 150.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.23%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 145.45%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.59%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.54%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 2.93%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
12.68%
Dividend growth of 12.68% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-31.01%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 585.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-33.94%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 389.01%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
880.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 118.18%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
63.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 118.18%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
40.40%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 8.70%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
725.47%
OCF/share CAGR of 725.47% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
7.41%
OCF/share CAGR of 7.41% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-2.13%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO stands at 9.05%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1144.63%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 393.78% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
24.67%
Below 50% of GPRO's 393.78%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
30.21%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1053.89%
Equity/share CAGR of 1053.89% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
49.55%
Equity/share CAGR of 49.55% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
26.73%
Positive short-term equity growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
35.84%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.84% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.80%
AR growth well above GPRO's 4.33%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
8.11%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. GPRO's 39.84%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
3.18%
Asset growth well under 50% of GPRO's 14.33%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.65%
We have a declining book value while GPRO shows 8.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
9.96%
Debt growth far above GPRO's 1.62%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
5.80%
We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.75%
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.
