PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Wuling Motors Holdings Limited (0305.HK)
0.690.03 (-4.17%)
0.68 - 0.75
0.33 - 0.86
18.34M / 4.66M (Avg.)
34.50 | 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.
-26.84%
Negative revenue growth while 0376.HK stands at 7.78%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-32.02%
Negative gross profit growth while 0376.HK is at 72.90%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-46.07%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-46.07%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-92.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-92.42%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-92.54%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.68%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.00%
Slight or no buyback while 0376.HK is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
68.58%
Dividend growth of 68.58% while 0376.HK is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-13.62%
Negative OCF growth while 0376.HK is at 135.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-10.58%
Negative FCF growth while 0376.HK is at 133.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-76.95%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 1657.96%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-60.58%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 1.94%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-45.66%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-239.91%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 298.40%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
39.42%
Positive OCF/share growth while 0376.HK is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
3.16%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 0376.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-98.14%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 0376.HK is at 151.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
132.00%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x 0376.HK's 104.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
107.44%
Positive short-term CAGR while 0376.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-6.40%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while 0376.HK stands at 682.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-18.28%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
0.48%
Positive short-term equity growth while 0376.HK is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-3.24%
Cut dividends over 10 years while 0376.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
20.32%
Dividend/share CAGR of 20.32% while 0376.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
86.50%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 86.50% while 0376.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-29.36%
Firm’s AR is declining while 0376.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
3.59%
Inventory growth of 3.59% while 0376.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-11.27%
Negative asset growth while 0376.HK invests at 11.52%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.58%
Positive BV/share change while 0376.HK is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
26.20%
We have some new debt while 0376.HK reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-29.26%
Our R&D shrinks while 0376.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-31.82%
We cut SG&A while 0376.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.