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.
1.81%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of WEED.TO's 2.32%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
23.28%
Gross profit growth under 50% of WEED.TO's 103.16%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
119.76%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 84.45%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
119.76%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 84.45%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
-0.34%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
5.93%
Positive EPS growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.76%
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.
-73.67%
Negative OCF growth while WEED.TO is at 47.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-24.62%
Negative FCF growth while WEED.TO is at 44.09%. 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.
729.33%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 215.21%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-5193.14%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-372.30%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-681.49%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
1634.96%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
2589.28%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
428.42%
Positive short-term CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
6077.40%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 2264.31%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
14361.42%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 1527.40%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
589.54%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 247.49%. 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.
34.59%
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.
24.96%
We show growth while WEED.TO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.90%
Positive asset growth while WEED.TO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.53%
Positive BV/share change while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.79%
We’re deleveraging while WEED.TO stands at 1.58%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
135.68%
We increase R&D while WEED.TO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.34%
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.