Apple Inc. (AAPL)

Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.

Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.

Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.

Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.

Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.

Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.

Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.

Share reduction while GPRO is at 3.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.

Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.

Dividend growth of 7.79% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.

Positive OCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.

Positive FCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.

Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.

Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.

Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.

OCF/share CAGR of 601.61% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.

Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.

Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.

Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.

Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.

3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 30.83%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.

Equity/share CAGR of 409.98% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.

Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.

Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.

Dividend/share CAGR of 66.51% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.

3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.60% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.

Our AR growth while GPRO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.

Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 93.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.

Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.

We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.

Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.