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.
9.41%
Revenue growth above 1.5x GPRO's 0.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
11.02%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x GPRO's 7.31%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
17.27%
Positive EBIT growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
17.27%
Positive operating income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
15.47%
Net income growth under 50% of GPRO's 34.36%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
15.75%
EPS growth under 50% of GPRO's 33.88%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
15.87%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of GPRO's 33.88%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.63%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.65%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.75%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-18.13%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 2769.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-19.98%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 2698.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
287.62%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
75.19%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
51.26%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
253.77%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
36.21%
Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
14.78%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
395.95%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
100.10%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
98.07%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-18.37%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while GPRO stands at 7786.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-28.59%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 144.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
4.00%
Below 50% of GPRO's 156.61%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
120.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 120.26% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
31.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.07% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
17.04%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 17.04% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
55.63%
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.
-13.88%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
5.24%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.75%
BV/share growth above 1.5x GPRO's 0.30%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
13.41%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-1.81%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 5.24%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
2.98%
SG&A declining or stable vs. GPRO's 16.58%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
