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.
20.55%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SAND's 2.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
20.55%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x SAND's 13.91%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
-8.75%
Negative EBIT growth while SAND is at 26.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-8.75%
Negative operating income growth while SAND is at 8.63%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-56.84%
Negative net income growth while SAND stands at 47.17%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-83.65%
Negative EPS growth while SAND is at 50.56%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-83.65%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SAND is at 49.43%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
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.
-92.10%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-92.10%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
26.10%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SAND's 34.25%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
26.10%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 75.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
21.17%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-10.50%
Firm’s AR is declining while SAND shows 18.98%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.99%
Inventory growth of 2.99% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
1.10%
Asset growth above 1.5x SAND's 0.31%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
1.57%
50-75% of SAND's 2.17%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
300.27%
SG&A growth well above SAND's 2.94%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.