PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (WPM)
96.701.20 (1.26%)
95.23 - 97.14
55.47 - 103.81
1.63M / 1.80M (Avg.)
55.57 | 1.74
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.
7.87%
Positive revenue growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
18.63%
Positive gross profit growth while AEM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-2.88%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.88%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-15.44%
Negative net income growth while AEM stands at 207.46%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-13.95%
Negative EPS growth while AEM is at 200.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-13.95%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AEM is at 200.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.07%
Share count expansion well above AEM's 0.09%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.09%
Diluted share count expanding well above AEM's 0.04%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
7.85%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while AEM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
11.35%
Positive OCF growth while AEM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
142.65%
Positive FCF growth while AEM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-35.57%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AEM stands at 16.23%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-4.69%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AEM stands at 24.71%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
4.75%
Positive 3Y CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-46.91%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AEM stands at 35.45%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
2.05%
Below 50% of AEM's 16.04%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
29.22%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-26.72%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
218.14%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AEM's 197.36%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
112.27%
Positive short-term CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
69.51%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of AEM's 79.64%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
34.27%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of AEM's 67.14%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
24.94%
Below 50% of AEM's 66.89%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
91.37%
Similar 10Y dividend/share CAGR to AEM's 85.67%. Walter Schloss expects both to share consistent earnings expansions and payout practices.
78.81%
Below 50% of AEM's 262.32%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
77.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of AEM's 121.81%. Martin Whitman might see a weaker short-term approach to distributing cash.
1.34%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. AEM's 295.45%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-6.70%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
2.62%
Asset growth above 1.5x AEM's 0.95%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.51%
BV/share growth above 1.5x AEM's 0.62%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-8.41%
We’re deleveraging while AEM stands at 1.56%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
104.71%
SG&A growth well above AEM's 10.35%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.