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.
-18.59%
Negative revenue growth while SAND stands at 4.35%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-16.62%
Negative gross profit growth while SAND is at 12.78%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-15.52%
Negative EBIT growth while SAND is at 45.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-15.52%
Negative operating income growth while SAND is at 45.19%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-18.77%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-18.92%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-18.92%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.05%
Slight or no buybacks while SAND is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.11%
Slight or no buyback while SAND is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-44.76%
Dividend reduction while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-6.99%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
31.55%
FCF growth under 50% of SAND's 108.86%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
13.95%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
12.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 26.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
42.63%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SAND's 50.25%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
-5.57%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
21.90%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 34.20%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
82.91%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 55.16%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-21.60%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
59.10%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
290.73%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 197.83%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
86.13%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 42.22%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
18.37%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
14.03%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 1.66%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
323.53%
Dividend/share CAGR of 323.53% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
190.02%
Dividend/share CAGR of 190.02% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
66.46%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 66.46% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-24.73%
Firm’s AR is declining while SAND shows 22.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
280.32%
Inventory growth of 280.32% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
1.09%
Positive asset growth while SAND is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.97%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-7.67%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-36.65%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.