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.
13.25%
Revenue growth above 1.5x FSM's 4.22%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
29.46%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x FSM's 2.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
37.40%
Positive EBIT growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
37.40%
Positive operating income growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
47.16%
Positive net income growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
40.00%
Positive EPS growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
40.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
8.38%
Share count expansion well above FSM's 0.94%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
8.40%
Diluted share count expanding well above FSM's 0.50%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
18.03%
Positive OCF growth while FSM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
16.51%
FCF growth under 50% of FSM's 54.35%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
122.35%
10Y CAGR of 122.35% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
-11.80%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FSM stands at 72.80%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
3.37%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 41.90%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
103.41%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x FSM's 73.13%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
-35.46%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-12.92%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
19.00%
Positive 10Y CAGR while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-67.05%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-31.11%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSM is 87.29%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
304.82%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 200.70%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
59.92%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 17.38%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
22.20%
Positive short-term equity growth while FSM is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
180.39%
Dividend/share CAGR of 180.39% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-67.63%
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.
156.53%
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.
-0.03%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
7.42%
Positive BV/share change while FSM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-48.50%
We’re deleveraging while FSM stands at 2.72%. 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.
-4.25%
We cut SG&A while FSM invests at 26.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.