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.
72.24%
Positive revenue growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
79.55%
Positive gross profit growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
126.96%
Positive EBIT growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
126.96%
Positive operating income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
126.90%
Positive net income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
129.73%
Positive EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
130.14%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.72%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.83%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
3.65%
Dividend growth of 3.65% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
88.39%
Positive OCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
87.65%
Positive FCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
533.41%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
92.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 5.08%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
52.42%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
502.86%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
85.32%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 27.44%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
65.45%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of GPRO's 75.09%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
627.94%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
105.63%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 91.04%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
73.07%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of GPRO's 87.36%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
84.13%
Below 50% of GPRO's 6369.95%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-32.21%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-42.96%
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.
59.78%
Dividend/share CAGR of 59.78% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
30.67%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 30.67% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
56.55%
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.
22.46%
Inventory growth well above GPRO's 14.22%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
9.31%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.09%
1.25-1.5x GPRO's 1.54%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-0.35%
We’re deleveraging while GPRO stands at 0.53%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
3.72%
R&D dropping or stable vs. GPRO's 17.86%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
14.08%
We expand SG&A while GPRO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.
