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%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SAND's 0.98%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
12.55%
Positive gross profit growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-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%
Negative net income growth while SAND stands at 31.34%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-81.25%
Negative EPS growth while SAND is at 54.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-81.25%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SAND is at 54.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.17%
Slight or no buybacks while SAND is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.23%
Slight or no buyback while SAND is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
1.54%
Dividend growth of 1.54% while SAND is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
0.04%
Positive OCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
126.84%
Positive FCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
222.40%
10Y CAGR of 222.40% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
-5.56%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-11.09%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SAND stands at 34.49%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
210.51%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SAND's 245.25%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
-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%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SAND stands at 61.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
108.33%
Below 50% of SAND's 281.44%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-94.15%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SAND is 103.54%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
103.66%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to SAND's 108.37%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
254.23%
Below 50% of SAND's 1052.95%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
23.55%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
12.98%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 10.09%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-13.85%
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.
77.66%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 77.66% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
118.02%
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.
-1.76%
Negative asset growth while SAND invests at 2.04%. 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 SAND shows 4.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-8.44%
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.
156.46%
SG&A growth well above SAND's 23.32%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.