Apple Inc. (AAPL)

Positive revenue growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.

Positive gross profit growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.

Positive EBIT growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.

Positive operating income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.

Positive net income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.

Positive EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.

Positive diluted EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.

Share reduction while GPRO is at 20.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.

Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 15.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.

Dividend growth of 3.12% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.

Positive OCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.

Positive FCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.

Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.

Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.

Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.

Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.

5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 59.82%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.

3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 14.65%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.

Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.

5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 103.86%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.

Dividend/share CAGR of 54.17% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.

3Y dividend/share CAGR of 20.88% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.

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.

Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 38.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.

Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.

Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.

We’re deleveraging while GPRO stands at 10.05%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.

We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.

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.