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.
23.55%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SAND's 13.32%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
29.24%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SAND's 15.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
37.10%
Positive EBIT growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
37.10%
Positive operating income growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
26.98%
Positive net income growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
28.00%
Positive EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
28.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.12%
Slight or no buybacks while SAND is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
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.
49.79%
OCF growth above 1.5x SAND's 5.56%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
10.57%
Positive FCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
24.38%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 16.92%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
22.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 62.95%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
5.86%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 67.27%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
26.57%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 54.61%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
46.48%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 87.72%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
32.07%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 114.50%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
55.82%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 103.80%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
-56.49%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SAND is 92.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
32.42%
Positive short-term CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
66.72%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 19.19%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
27.99%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 41.91%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
25.20%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SAND's 47.96%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
13.23%
Dividend/share CAGR of 13.23% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
101.95%
Dividend/share CAGR of 101.95% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
59.08%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 59.08% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-26.61%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-24.39%
Inventory is declining while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.37%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.38%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
269.36%
We have some new debt while SAND reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-18.96%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.