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.
11.91%
Positive revenue growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
229.93%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x WEED.TO's 54.88%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-19.65%
Negative EBIT growth while WEED.TO is at 29.44%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-19.65%
Negative operating income growth while WEED.TO is at 29.44%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
495.53%
Positive net income growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
479.36%
Positive EPS growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
486.45%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
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.
-128.34%
Negative OCF growth while WEED.TO is at 29.84%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-5.43%
Negative FCF growth while WEED.TO is at 0.79%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
231.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of WEED.TO's 287.29%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
-2712.91%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-106697.14%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-432.17%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
2364.45%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
4240.51%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
1153.04%
Positive short-term CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
5805.96%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 2685.39%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
7110.93%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 2534.42%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
2546.66%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 1166.53%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
515.88%
Our AR growth while WEED.TO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
55.77%
Inventory growth well above WEED.TO's 50.22%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
22.83%
Positive asset growth while WEED.TO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
23.55%
Positive BV/share change while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
78.69%
We have some new debt while WEED.TO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
25.44%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. WEED.TO's 16.50%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.88%
We expand SG&A while WEED.TO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.