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.
-31.19%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 20.49%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-31.88%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 27.18%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-42.54%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 65.76%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-42.54%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 65.76%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-42.09%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 53.68%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-40.95%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 52.94%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-41.90%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 54.12%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.30%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.52%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 1.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.23%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-58.21%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 98.41%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-62.32%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 96.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
848.55%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 31.21%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
66.51%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
35.38%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 30.45%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
1670.28%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 97.60%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
7.95%
Below 50% of GPRO's 94.46%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
13.44%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 97.76%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1180.49%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
48.15%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 66.67%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
29.70%
Below 50% of GPRO's 87.89%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
481.16%
Equity/share CAGR of 481.16% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
15.40%
Below 50% of GPRO's 143.94%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-4.27%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
69.50%
Dividend/share CAGR of 69.50% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
39.97%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 39.97% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-28.94%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 22.77%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-2.09%
Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 8.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-8.49%
Negative asset growth while GPRO invests at 4.14%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-9.02%
We have a declining book value while GPRO shows 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.83%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.18%
R&D dropping or stable vs. GPRO's 3.60%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-6.79%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 11.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
