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.
-30.76%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 39.70%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-30.93%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 85.61%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-39.51%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 58.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-39.51%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 58.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-31.11%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 51.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-29.59%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 50.91%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-29.90%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 50.91%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.72%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.73%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.95%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.79%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-46.52%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 98.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-57.09%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 98.90%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
897.19%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 29.65%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
83.53%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 29.65%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
21.52%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1453.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 97.52%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
58.39%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 97.52%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
-8.57%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
1520.64%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
89.51%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
17.45%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
761.13%
Equity/share CAGR of 761.13% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
22.58%
Equity/share CAGR of 22.58% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
13.40%
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.
67.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 67.63% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
34.09%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 34.09% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-55.98%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 43.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
73.31%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-9.66%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-7.92%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.46%
We’re deleveraging while GPRO stands at 1.68%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.85%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-1.91%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 21.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
