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.
8.66%
Revenue growth above 1.5x GPRO's 5.21%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
6.16%
Positive gross profit growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
7.88%
Positive EBIT growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
7.88%
Positive operating income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
6.58%
Positive net income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
7.50%
Positive EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.50%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.82%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.88%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-2.03%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
5.39%
Positive OCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
0.23%
Positive FCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
310.80%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
120.30%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
57.74%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
332.84%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 143.66%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
98.01%
Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
35.79%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
313.01%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 115.38% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
148.50%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 104.85%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
69.66%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-29.74%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while GPRO stands at 10761.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-51.43%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 80.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-37.25%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 147.19%. 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.
45.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.51% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
19.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.27% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
44.25%
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.
-8.96%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
4.89%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-12.07%
We have a declining book value while GPRO shows 9.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.32%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-0.53%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
7.12%
SG&A declining or stable vs. GPRO's 19.79%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
