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.
29.96%
Positive revenue growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
32.12%
Positive gross profit growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
44.68%
Positive EBIT growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
44.68%
Positive operating income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
44.77%
Positive net income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
46.51%
Positive EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
45.74%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.86%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.01%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
2.64%
Dividend growth of 2.64% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
40.94%
Positive OCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
45.01%
Positive FCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
255.51%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
70.75%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
41.78%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to GPRO's 38.95%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
140.12%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
54.66%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 38.70%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
23.83%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 6.69%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
279.44%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
92.39%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x GPRO's 65.29%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
49.91%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to GPRO's 55.36%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
-26.31%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while GPRO stands at 16316.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-47.93%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 140.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-29.59%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 213.03%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
150.02%
Dividend/share CAGR of 150.02% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
45.22%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.22% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
18.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 18.31% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-11.08%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
37.89%
Inventory growth well above GPRO's 21.77%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.70%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
12.92%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-7.46%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
14.02%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 5.99%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.59%
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.
