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.
-12.88%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 1.15%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-12.81%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 9.19%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-20.65%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 30.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-20.65%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 30.75%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-16.66%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 27.31%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-14.49%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 29.63%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-14.71%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 29.63%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-2.84%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 1.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.80%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
17.86%
Dividend growth of 17.86% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-4.24%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 1031.58%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
2.62%
FCF growth under 50% of GPRO's 837.50%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
804.23%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 83.98%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
98.61%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 19.10%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
26.02%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1289.68%
OCF/share CAGR of 1289.68% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
143.77%
Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
13.45%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 104.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1261.54%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
119.88%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
26.62%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
642.29%
Equity/share CAGR of 642.29% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
22.74%
Below 50% of GPRO's 499.25%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
7.35%
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.
71.16%
Dividend/share CAGR of 71.16% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
40.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 40.43% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
17.67%
AR growth well above GPRO's 28.20%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-22.53%
Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 43.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.98%
Negative asset growth while GPRO invests at 10.07%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.75%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.94%
We’re deleveraging while GPRO stands at 1.67%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
9.56%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 7.67%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-1.01%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
