PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
0.34 - 0.34
0.23 - 0.41
110.0K / 51.2K (Avg.)
-1.33 | -0.26
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.
139.63%
Revenue growth of 139.63% while 8198.HK is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a small edge can widen further.
-6.61%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
27.23%
Positive operating income growth while 8198.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
33.87%
Positive net income growth while 8198.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
31.25%
Positive EPS growth while 8198.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
31.25%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 8198.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.00%
Share change of 0.00% while 8198.HK is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-121.39%
Negative OCF growth while 8198.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-116.54%
Negative FCF growth while 8198.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-87.78%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-88.16%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 8198.HK stands at 1195.76%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-60.23%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
13.79%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of 8198.HK's 92.33%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
38.22%
Below 50% of 8198.HK's 86.84%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-49.02%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8198.HK stands at 91.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-264.27%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8198.HK is at 93.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-5490.50%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-473.19%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-7.01%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while 8198.HK stands at 102.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-24.07%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-19.64%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while 8198.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while 8198.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-100.00%
Negative near-term dividend growth while 8198.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
84.92%
AR growth of 84.92% while 8198.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
-0.29%
Inventory is declining while 8198.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-10.95%
Negative asset growth while 8198.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.95%
We have a declining book value while 8198.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-36.45%
We’re deleveraging while 8198.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while 8198.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-22.46%
We cut SG&A while 8198.HK invests at 141.42%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.