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 0425.HK stands at 2.92%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-32.02%
Negative gross profit growth while 0425.HK is at 3.35%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-46.07%
Negative EBIT growth while 0425.HK is at 16.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-46.07%
Negative operating income growth while 0425.HK is at 16.17%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-92.78%
Negative net income growth while 0425.HK stands at 5.14%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-92.42%
Negative EPS growth while 0425.HK is at 5.68%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-92.54%
Negative diluted EPS growth while 0425.HK is at 5.68%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.68%
Share reduction while 0425.HK is at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.00%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x 0425.HK's 0.00%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
68.58%
Dividend growth of 68.58% while 0425.HK is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-13.62%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-10.58%
Negative FCF growth while 0425.HK is at 16.35%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-76.95%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 0425.HK stands at 236.45%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-60.58%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 0425.HK stands at 81.10%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-45.66%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 0425.HK stands at 67.57%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-239.91%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 0425.HK stands at 301.10%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
39.42%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to 0425.HK's 42.09%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
3.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of 0425.HK's 134.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-98.14%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 0425.HK is at 81.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
132.00%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x 0425.HK's 19.59%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
107.44%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x 0425.HK's 19.28%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-6.40%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while 0425.HK stands at 141.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-18.28%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 0425.HK is at 43.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
0.48%
Below 50% of 0425.HK's 26.88%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-3.24%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
20.32%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while 0425.HK is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
86.50%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while 0425.HK cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-29.36%
Firm’s AR is declining while 0425.HK shows 4.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
3.59%
Inventory growth well above 0425.HK's 4.73%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-11.27%
Negative asset growth while 0425.HK invests at 2.74%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.58%
Under 50% of 0425.HK's 5.27%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
26.20%
We have some new debt while 0425.HK reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-29.26%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-31.82%
We cut SG&A while 0425.HK invests at 0.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.