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
18.36M / 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 0259.HK stands at 25.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-32.02%
Negative gross profit growth while 0259.HK is at 23.52%. 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%
Negative operating income growth while 0259.HK is at 54.77%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-92.78%
Negative net income growth while 0259.HK stands at 40.23%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-92.42%
Negative EPS growth while 0259.HK is at 43.52%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-92.54%
Negative diluted EPS growth while 0259.HK is at 43.71%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-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 0259.HK is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
68.58%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while 0259.HK cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-13.62%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-10.58%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-76.95%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 0259.HK stands at 23.71%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-60.58%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 0259.HK stands at 25.35%. 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%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
39.42%
Positive OCF/share growth while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
3.16%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 0259.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-98.14%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 0259.HK is at 53.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
132.00%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x 0259.HK's 50.98%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
107.44%
Positive short-term CAGR while 0259.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 0259.HK stands at 156.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-18.28%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 0259.HK is at 51.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
0.48%
Below 50% of 0259.HK's 18.07%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-3.24%
Cut dividends over 10 years while 0259.HK stands at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
20.32%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while 0259.HK is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
86.50%
3Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of 0259.HK's 150.00%. Martin Whitman might see a weaker short-term approach to distributing cash.
-29.36%
Firm’s AR is declining while 0259.HK shows 34.71%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
3.59%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. 0259.HK's 15.66%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-11.27%
Negative asset growth while 0259.HK invests at 7.52%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.58%
Under 50% of 0259.HK's 4.98%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
26.20%
Debt shrinking faster vs. 0259.HK's 188.75%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-29.26%
Our R&D shrinks while 0259.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 0259.HK invests at 18.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.