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.
5.83%
Positive revenue growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
12.55%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x FSM's 5.14%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-10.38%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-10.38%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-79.93%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-81.25%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-81.25%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.17%
Share change of 0.17% while FSM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.23%
Slight or no buyback while FSM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
1.54%
Dividend growth of 1.54% while FSM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
0.04%
Positive OCF growth while FSM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
126.84%
Positive FCF growth while FSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
222.40%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 7503.31%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-5.56%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FSM stands at 27.47%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-11.09%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSM stands at 29.98%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
210.51%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x FSM's 113.71%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-29.99%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-26.27%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
108.33%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSM's 152.40%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
-94.15%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while FSM is 111.63%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
103.66%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to FSM's 110.42%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
254.23%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with FSM's 259.90%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
23.55%
Below 50% of FSM's 89.39%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
12.98%
Below 50% of FSM's 84.22%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-13.85%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while FSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
77.66%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 77.66% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
118.02%
AR growth well above FSM's 14.58%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.76%
Negative asset growth while FSM invests at 6.53%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.46%
We have a declining book value while FSM shows 0.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-8.44%
We’re deleveraging while FSM stands at 86.76%. 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.
156.46%
SG&A growth well above FSM's 26.58%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.