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.
-20.73%
Negative revenue growth while 0335.HK stands at 504.17%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-20.73%
Negative gross profit growth while 0335.HK is at 511.72%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
69.71%
EBIT growth below 50% of 0335.HK's 907.69%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
69.71%
Operating income growth under 50% of 0335.HK's 540.80%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
47.02%
Positive net income growth while 0335.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
46.25%
Positive EPS growth while 0335.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
46.25%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 0335.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
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.
-103.15%
Negative OCF growth while 0335.HK is at 227.47%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-103.43%
Negative FCF growth while 0335.HK is at 234.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-71.01%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-71.01%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-76.79%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
33.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of 0335.HK's 79.12%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
33.59%
Below 50% of 0335.HK's 160.73%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-24.45%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 0335.HK stands at 78.67%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
77.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while 0335.HK is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
77.18%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 0335.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
34.04%
Positive short-term CAGR while 0335.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-3.06%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.