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.
-10.16%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.53%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-18.53%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.53%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-20.45%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-18.18%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-18.18%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SAND is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.07%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 9.41%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.04%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 5.88%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-10.70%
Negative OCF growth while SAND is at 33.57%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
1085.59%
FCF growth above 1.5x SAND's 320.29%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
198.96%
5Y CAGR of 198.96% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
-24.65%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SAND stands at 4714.91%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
2800.51%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 199.72%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
222.96%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 12.90%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-39.82%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SAND stands at 551.95%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1699.31%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 199.79% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
186.89%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-57.64%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SAND is 132.24%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
5331.89%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 1817.63%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
123.30%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 109.82%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
41.24%
Below 50% of SAND's 84.28%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
317.42%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 317.42% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
57.80%
Our AR growth while SAND 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.
1.00%
Asset growth well under 50% of SAND's 13.93%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.92%
50-75% of SAND's 3.63%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
0.02%
Debt growth of 0.02% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.79%
We expand SG&A while SAND cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.