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.
-9.10%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 26.88%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.42%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 39.05%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-12.28%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 411.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-12.28%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 411.48%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-7.98%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 1739.08%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-7.09%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 1727.27%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-7.14%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 1820.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.74%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.89%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.87%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
10.10%
Dividend growth of 10.10% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-12.04%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 191.81%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-12.49%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 191.58%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
344.45%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 84.12%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
151.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 18.99%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
79.54%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 0.08%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
196.12%
OCF/share CAGR of 196.12% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
159.71%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 246.51%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
70.98%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 525.90%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
363.96%
Below 50% of GPRO's 5590.55%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
265.17%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 370.81%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
121.68%
Below 50% of GPRO's 1139.98%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
44.55%
Equity/share CAGR of 44.55% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-33.49%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-34.33%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 191.50%. 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.
54.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 54.75% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
21.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 21.10% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.64%
AR growth well above GPRO's 2.45%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-0.79%
Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 13.25%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.17%
Negative asset growth while GPRO invests at 47.54%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.39%
We have a declining book value while GPRO shows 130.96%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.12%
Debt shrinking faster vs. GPRO's 0.66%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
8.65%
We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.84%
SG&A growth well above GPRO's 1.96%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
