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.
9.51%
Positive revenue growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
7.27%
Positive gross profit growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-21.53%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.53%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
12.27%
Positive net income growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.96%
EPS growth above 1.5x WEED.TO's 7.50%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
16.96%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x WEED.TO's 7.50%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
5.73%
Share count expansion well above WEED.TO's 9.57%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
5.73%
Diluted share count expanding well above WEED.TO's 9.57%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-91.95%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-81.39%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
233.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to WEED.TO's 228.80%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-47.78%
Negative 3Y CAGR while WEED.TO stands at 117.17%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-1691.31%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-637.63%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-556.05%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-5853.83%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-133.36%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
82.42%
Positive short-term CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
5683.87%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 913.44%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-29.32%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-23.00%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
10.38%
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.
8.89%
Inventory growth well above WEED.TO's 6.60%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.63%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-5.64%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.92%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-29.11%
Our R&D shrinks while WEED.TO invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
7.54%
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.