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%
Net income growth above 1.5x SAND's 25.63%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
1300.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x SAND's 11.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
1300.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x SAND's 11.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
3.48%
Slight or no buybacks while SAND is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
3.44%
Slight or no buyback while SAND is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-8.03%
Dividend reduction while SAND 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%
Negative FCF growth while SAND is at 859.01%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
299.53%
10Y CAGR of 299.53% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
43.11%
5Y CAGR of 43.11% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
-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 SAND's 10359.10%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
22.41%
Below 50% of SAND's 496.08%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-45.18%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
269.19%
Below 50% of SAND's 768.84%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-5.47%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SAND is 167.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-65.73%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
583.10%
Below 50% of SAND's 1275.69%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
94.31%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 40.62%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
30.33%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 56.72%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation 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.
-48.88%
Negative near-term dividend growth while SAND invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
98.06%
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.
0.64%
Positive asset growth while SAND is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-2.60%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.03%
We have some new debt while SAND 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%
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.