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.
2.37%
Revenue growth under 50% of GPRO's 23.52%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.23%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 16.68%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-1.41%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 20.63%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-1.41%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 20.63%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-5.49%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-4.58%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.62%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.86%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.78%. 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.
-2.54%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-4.24%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 142.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-10.65%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 151.76%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
364.86%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
131.67%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
54.39%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
205.35%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 378.30%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
63.10%
Below 50% of GPRO's 1065.43%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
20.53%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 205.20%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
389.18%
Similar net income/share CAGR to GPRO's 361.90%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
196.86%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 141.07%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
69.49%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 49.85%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
29.82%
Below 50% of GPRO's 10776.81%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-35.95%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 24.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-31.41%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 161.86%. 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.
53.29%
Dividend/share CAGR of 53.29% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
20.12%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 20.12% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
51.90%
AR growth well above GPRO's 15.57%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
27.08%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
6.42%
Asset growth at 50-75% of GPRO's 12.67%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
-1.00%
We have a declining book value while GPRO shows 10.12%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
2.40%
Debt growth far above GPRO's 0.76%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
0.96%
We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.77%
SG&A declining or stable vs. GPRO's 27.76%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
