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.
-19.05%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 37.95%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-16.60%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 44.32%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-21.37%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 43.50%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-21.37%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 43.50%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-19.46%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 42.38%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-19.05%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 42.11%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.15%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 42.11%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.66%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.68%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-2.48%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-16.01%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 88.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-15.14%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 87.67%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
262.47%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
97.49%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
79.66%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to GPRO's 72.49%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
280.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 83.43%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
140.33%
Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
137.03%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 82.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
321.74%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
122.54%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 58.76%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
137.27%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 67.56%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-23.55%
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.
-37.63%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 168.08%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-12.44%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 309.89%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
144.19%
Dividend/share CAGR of 144.19% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
45.67%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.67% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
19.47%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.47% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-33.74%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 44.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
9.71%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.21%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
10.31%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.35%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-3.27%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 9.74%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-6.14%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 4.12%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
