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.
10.67%
Positive revenue growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
10.59%
Positive gross profit growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
16.72%
Positive EBIT growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
16.72%
Positive operating income growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-31.29%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-30.71%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-30.71%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.97%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.69%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.38%
Dividend reduction while GPRO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-7.09%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-10.50%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
252.56%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
75.51%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
23.75%
Positive 3Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
216.56%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
59.44%
Positive OCF/share growth while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
44.23%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
172.27%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
27.48%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GPRO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-22.08%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-20.13%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-25.48%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-1.91%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
110.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 110.36% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
29.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.46% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
13.56%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 13.56% while GPRO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
53.44%
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.
18.18%
We show growth while GPRO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
10.06%
Positive asset growth while GPRO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-13.80%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
5.26%
We have some new debt while GPRO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.01%
Our R&D shrinks while GPRO invests at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
3.21%
SG&A growth well above GPRO's 5.85%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
