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.
23.92%
Revenue growth similar to SAND's 24.22%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
42.28%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of SAND's 63.86%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
51.76%
EBIT growth below 50% of SAND's 121.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
51.76%
Operating income growth under 50% of SAND's 121.08%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
41.64%
Positive net income growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
37.50%
Positive EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
37.50%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.11%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 1.92%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.43%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 1.31%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-55.10%
Dividend reduction while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
50.27%
Similar OCF growth to SAND's 46.43%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
49.75%
FCF growth similar to SAND's 47.53%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
153.70%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 1712.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
80.52%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 19.15%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
48.97%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 23.75%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
148.05%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 4412.73%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
106.30%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 35.94%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
73.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 45.44%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
65.93%
Below 50% of SAND's 827.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
240.67%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 173.75%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
121.59%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 30.29%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
115.16%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 101.26%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
15.09%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
7.84%
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.
102.78%
Dividend/share CAGR of 102.78% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
0.17%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 0.17% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
144.82%
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.
-0.70%
Negative asset growth while SAND invests at 0.21%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
2.37%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-23.76%
We’re deleveraging while SAND stands at 17.51%. 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.
-2.17%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.