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.
0.88%
Positive revenue growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.53%
Positive gross profit growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
8.65%
Positive EBIT growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
8.65%
Positive operating income growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
10.43%
Positive net income growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
7.14%
Positive EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.14%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.07%
Share count expansion well above SAND's 0.03%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.09%
Slight or no buyback while SAND is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.97%
Positive OCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
4.72%
FCF growth under 50% of SAND's 11.11%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
141.61%
10Y CAGR of 141.61% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
-20.62%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
8.81%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
124.63%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 187.58%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-42.27%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-1.57%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
48.42%
Similar net income/share CAGR to SAND's 53.51%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
-61.72%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-13.79%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
238.97%
Below 50% of SAND's 1619.87%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
41.60%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with SAND's 40.07%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
16.36%
Positive short-term equity growth while SAND 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.
-34.46%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-5.82%
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.
13.77%
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.
-1.47%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.03%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-10.43%
We’re deleveraging while SAND stands at 0.00%. 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.
15.14%
SG&A growth well above SAND's 16.22%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.