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.
19.01%
Revenue growth under 50% of GPRO's 302.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
20.20%
Gross profit growth under 50% of GPRO's 609.85%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
31.66%
EBIT growth below 50% of GPRO's 234.98%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
31.66%
Operating income growth under 50% of GPRO's 234.98%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
36.26%
Net income growth under 50% of GPRO's 228.08%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
38.18%
EPS growth under 50% of GPRO's 227.45%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
38.18%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of GPRO's 227.45%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.75%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.76%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.99%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.43%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
71.11%
OCF growth under 50% of GPRO's 289.08%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
77.80%
FCF growth under 50% of GPRO's 269.09%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
808.24%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 8.54%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
100.88%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
63.35%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
796.14%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 259.71%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
98.55%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 76.77%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
47.55%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 568.80%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1050.61%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 608.07% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
113.58%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
81.45%
Below 50% of GPRO's 179.68%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
300.33%
Below 50% of GPRO's 4413.14%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
7.19%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-15.68%
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.
62.49%
Dividend/share CAGR of 62.49% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
34.47%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 34.47% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
73.02%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. GPRO's 178.75%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
22.38%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.05%
Asset growth well under 50% of GPRO's 15.34%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-4.52%
We have a declining book value while GPRO shows 76.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.34%
We’re deleveraging while GPRO stands at 1.46%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-3.45%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
3.43%
SG&A declining or stable vs. GPRO's 14.46%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
