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.
-24.10%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 19.78%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-22.94%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 3.65%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-30.89%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-30.89%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-30.31%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 85.90%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-30.14%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 86.16%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-29.82%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 86.16%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.67%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.93%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.72%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.93%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.35%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-43.13%
Negative OCF growth while GPRO is at 100.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-44.82%
Negative FCF growth while GPRO is at 99.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
216.10%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
89.84%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
10.17%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
166.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 102.99%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
146.85%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to GPRO's 154.03%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
2.89%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
267.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
148.11%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
8.78%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-1.85%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while GPRO stands at 111.89%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-14.94%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
16.63%
Positive short-term equity growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
121.66%
Dividend/share CAGR of 121.66% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
30.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 30.77% 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.
-17.87%
Firm’s AR is declining while GPRO shows 25.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-4.29%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-4.56%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.80%
Positive BV/share change while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-3.19%
We’re deleveraging while GPRO stands at 1.13%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
2.69%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GPRO's 3.39%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-4.69%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 10.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
