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.
-21.52%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 15.68%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-21.54%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 6.11%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-27.74%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-27.74%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-27.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-27.01%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-27.62%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.69%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.70%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-3.00%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-40.03%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 117.51%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-41.92%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 116.34%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
298.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 1.31%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
136.15%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
92.58%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
223.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 126.77%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
187.73%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to GPRO's 197.88%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
189.99%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of GPRO's 1217.68%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
245.56%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 135.45% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
191.18%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 107.18%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
148.46%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 120.10%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
5.59%
Equity/share CAGR of 5.59% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-35.45%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 64.79%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-26.88%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 171.32%. 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.
53.67%
Dividend/share CAGR of 53.67% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
19.92%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.92% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-30.42%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 25.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-7.08%
Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 5.54%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-8.01%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-5.65%
We have a declining book value while GPRO shows 20.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-2.29%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.28%
R&D dropping or stable vs. GPRO's 14.62%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-3.97%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 8.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
