PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Wuling Motors Holdings Limited (0305.HK)
0.700.02 (-2.78%)
0.68 - 0.75
0.33 - 0.86
12.80M / 4.66M (Avg.)
35.00 | 0.02
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.
5.99%
Positive revenue growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
52.56%
Positive gross profit growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
90.29%
Positive EBIT growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
90.29%
Positive operating income growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
1343.52%
Positive net income growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
1220.00%
Positive EPS growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1240.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.83%
Slight or no buybacks while 0259.HK is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.00%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.60%
Dividend reduction while 0259.HK stands at 99.47%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
13.50%
Positive OCF growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
11.76%
Positive FCF growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-62.99%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 0259.HK stands at 1.89%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-62.26%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 0259.HK stands at 5.38%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-48.38%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-373.36%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 0259.HK stands at 181.83%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-31.73%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 0259.HK is at 28.32%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
37.34%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of 0259.HK's 436.65%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
9.63%
Below 50% of 0259.HK's 40.13%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-44.38%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-87.71%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
25.71%
Below 50% of 0259.HK's 152.55%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-17.40%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 0259.HK is at 32.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
21.45%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to 0259.HK's 19.61%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
9.32%
Below 50% of 0259.HK's 100.70%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-4.88%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-27.62%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-4.57%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.89%
Under 50% of 0259.HK's 2.84%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
4.18%
Debt shrinking faster vs. 0259.HK's 90.15%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
47.15%
R&D growth of 47.15% while 0259.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
51.97%
SG&A growth well above 0259.HK's 9.44%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.