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.
-13.40%
Negative revenue growth while 0376.HK stands at 2.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-37.16%
Negative gross profit growth while 0376.HK is at 2.73%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-160.18%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-160.18%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-2470.86%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-2340.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-2611.11%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
8.64%
Slight or no buybacks while 0376.HK is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.01%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-3.94%
Dividend reduction while 0376.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
6.72%
OCF growth under 50% of 0376.HK's 21.14%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
8.02%
FCF growth under 50% of 0376.HK's 21.25%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-50.96%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 1922.64%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-59.12%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 7419.82%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-37.20%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 40.31%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-369.96%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 536.47%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
8.30%
Below 50% of 0376.HK's 1998.90%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
36.01%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of 0376.HK's 136.50%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-175.70%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 0376.HK is at 58.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-159.50%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 0376.HK is 47.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1528.07%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
63.91%
Below 50% of 0376.HK's 428.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-16.92%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 0376.HK is at 55.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-22.64%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
64.08%
Dividend/share CAGR of 64.08% while 0376.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-75.82%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-33.71%
Negative near-term dividend growth while 0376.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
1.80%
AR growth of 1.80% while 0376.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
-26.93%
Inventory is declining while 0376.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
11.24%
Asset growth above 1.5x 0376.HK's 1.70%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-11.94%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
77.55%
We have some new debt while 0376.HK reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-34.23%
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.
-10.18%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.