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.
-5.48%
Negative revenue growth while GPRO stands at 39.03%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.13%
Negative gross profit growth while GPRO is at 61.52%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-9.13%
Negative EBIT growth while GPRO is at 81.32%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-9.13%
Negative operating income growth while GPRO is at 81.32%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-9.26%
Negative net income growth while GPRO stands at 82.83%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-8.50%
Negative EPS growth while GPRO is at 82.77%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-8.50%
Negative diluted EPS growth while GPRO is at 82.77%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.56%
Share reduction while GPRO is at 0.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.75%
Reduced diluted shares while GPRO is at 0.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
5.57%
Dividend growth of 5.57% while GPRO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
27.18%
Positive OCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
29.06%
Positive FCF growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
259.74%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
90.24%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to GPRO's 86.95%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
14.34%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
341.77%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
195.96%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 95.45%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
48.50%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
334.57%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
154.83%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x GPRO's 89.60%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
7.07%
Positive short-term CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-13.41%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-17.47%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GPRO is at 32.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
12.65%
Positive short-term equity growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
113.28%
Dividend/share CAGR of 113.28% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
28.08%
Dividend/share CAGR of 28.08% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
12.24%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 12.24% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
4.91%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. GPRO's 54.23%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-1.08%
Inventory is declining while GPRO stands at 59.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.72%
Negative asset growth while GPRO invests at 18.83%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-9.59%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-3.14%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.30%
We increase R&D while GPRO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.29%
We cut SG&A while GPRO invests at 1.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
