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.
-19.61%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 22.54%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.10%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 26.16%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-17.98%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 370.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-17.98%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 370.56%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-17.82%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 266.72%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-17.06%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 257.14%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-16.67%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 249.70%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.07%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 5.77%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.08%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 8.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.56%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-38.13%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 190.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-38.43%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 183.67%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
460.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 2.85%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
133.29%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 2.25%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
75.80%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
494.97%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 149.21%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
172.16%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 146.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
90.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 2086.72%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
508.98%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 343.26%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
195.85%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 116.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
105.10%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of GPRO's 140.87%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
73.62%
Equity/share CAGR of 73.62% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-30.18%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-34.59%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 13.99%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
56.39%
Dividend/share CAGR of 56.39% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.64% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-43.64%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 40.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
4.95%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.77%
Negative asset growth while GPRO invests at 5.73%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
5.59%
75-90% of GPRO's 6.48%. Bill Ackman advocates improvements in profitability or buybacks to keep pace in net worth growth.
8.57%
Debt growth far above GPRO's 0.53%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
1.92%
R&D dropping or stable vs. GPRO's 16.56%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-5.63%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 4.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
