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.
10.44%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SAND's 18.59%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
19.36%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SAND's 6.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
12.09%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SAND's 18.13%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
12.09%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of SAND's 18.13%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
-46.04%
Negative net income growth while SAND stands at 23.61%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-46.15%
Negative EPS growth while SAND is at 25.26%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-46.15%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SAND is at 23.42%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.13%
Share count expansion well above SAND's 0.20%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.05%
Diluted share count expanding well above SAND's 0.09%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
7.81%
OCF growth at 50-75% of SAND's 14.65%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
251.29%
FCF growth under 50% of SAND's 703.64%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
20.66%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
51.97%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SAND's 48.74%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
34.55%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 81.59%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
0.77%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
71.89%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 48.30%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
75.55%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 56.34%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
-16.12%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
151.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 3.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
170.60%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of SAND's 241.51%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
80.17%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 26.77%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
24.93%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
19.74%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
118.73%
AR growth well above SAND's 29.59%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-15.06%
Inventory is declining while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.76%
Asset growth above 1.5x SAND's 0.60%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
1.46%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-6.09%
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.
38.24%
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.