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.
-14.72%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 21.72%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-15.68%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 20.88%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-23.03%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 424.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-23.03%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 424.83%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-22.26%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 597.50%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-22.08%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 400.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-21.05%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 400.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.71%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 7.59%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.86%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
6.77%
Dividend growth of 6.77% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-18.72%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 216.86%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-18.95%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 221.35%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
284.33%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 63.18%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
134.89%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
74.39%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 100.99%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
264.54%
OCF/share CAGR of 264.54% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
239.39%
Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
122.53%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 175.41%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
257.49%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of GPRO's 384.60%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
186.75%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
118.95%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to GPRO's 120.29%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
-15.63%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-43.59%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 44.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-31.86%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 299.14%. 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.
45.61%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.61% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
18.79%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 18.79% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-6.96%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-0.49%
Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 21.73%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.09%
Negative asset growth while GPRO invests at 4.85%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-13.17%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.24%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.42%
We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.92%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 0.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
