PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY.TO)
2.000.05 (2.56%)
1.90 - 2.15
0.48 - 2.54
9.88M / 3.06M (Avg.)
-0.59 | -3.40
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.
13.79%
Revenue growth similar to WEED.TO's 13.25%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
-55.89%
Negative gross profit growth while WEED.TO is at 449.93%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-110.68%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-110.68%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-140.68%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-129.18%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-128.65%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
40.06%
Share count expansion well above WEED.TO's 13.39%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
37.54%
Diluted share count expanding well above WEED.TO's 8.83%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4001.79%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
29.11%
Positive FCF growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
428.38%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to WEED.TO's 442.58%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-2160.23%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-519.63%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while WEED.TO is at 52.39%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-44.26%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-325.17%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-1884.91%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while WEED.TO is 30.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-128.25%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
4744.30%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WEED.TO's 8654.64%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
5474.80%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 239.85%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
1855.02%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 1533.54%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-85.62%
Firm’s AR is declining while WEED.TO shows 12.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
86.58%
Inventory growth well above WEED.TO's 41.71%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
52.33%
Asset growth above 1.5x WEED.TO's 1.06%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
11.30%
Positive BV/share change while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-20.34%
We’re deleveraging while WEED.TO stands at 19.52%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
86.76%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. WEED.TO's 38.18%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
55.94%
SG&A growth well above WEED.TO's 36.87%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.