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.
-15.36%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-25.34%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-25.34%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-25.34%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
1057.27%
Positive net income growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
1300.00%
Positive EPS growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1300.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
3.48%
Share change of 3.48% while FSM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
3.44%
Slight or no buyback while FSM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-8.03%
Dividend reduction while FSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-21.81%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-15.44%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
299.53%
10Y CAGR of 299.53% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
43.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSM's 68.73%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-30.25%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
511.56%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 1575.98%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
22.41%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 12.42%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-45.18%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while FSM stands at 6.99%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
269.19%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 103.37% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-5.47%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-65.73%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSM is 102.73%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
583.10%
Below 50% of FSM's 4085.92%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
94.31%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x FSM's 76.79%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
30.33%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 0.44%. 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.
-48.88%
Negative near-term dividend growth while FSM invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
98.06%
Our AR growth while FSM is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.64%
Asset growth well under 50% of FSM's 2.31%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-2.60%
We have a declining book value while FSM shows 1.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.03%
We have some new debt while FSM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.99%
SG&A declining or stable vs. FSM's 27.26%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.