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.
3.52%
Revenue growth under 50% of 9698.HK's 11.81%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
16.18%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x 9698.HK's 12.35%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
59.72%
Positive operating income growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
1154.17%
Positive net income growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
1100.00%
Positive EPS growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1100.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
3.74%
Share change of 3.74% while 9698.HK is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
3.76%
Diluted share change of 3.76% while 9698.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
2215.96%
Dividend growth of 2215.96% while 9698.HK is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-178.65%
Negative OCF growth while 9698.HK is at 121.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-180.23%
Negative FCF growth while 9698.HK is at 31.24%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-3.04%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
23.10%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-2.31%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-979.39%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 9698.HK stands at 101.87%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-234.22%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 9698.HK is at 101.87%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
42.96%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of 9698.HK's 101.87%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-37.41%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 9698.HK is at 90.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-46.65%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 9698.HK is 90.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
6.63%
Below 50% of 9698.HK's 90.75%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
28.42%
Equity/share CAGR of 28.42% while 9698.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
10.30%
Equity/share CAGR of 10.30% while 9698.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-64.73%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while 9698.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-43.17%
Negative near-term dividend growth while 9698.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-100.00%
Firm’s AR is declining while 9698.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-4.99%
Inventory is declining while 9698.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.21%
Negative asset growth while 9698.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.59%
We have a declining book value while 9698.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-16.02%
We’re deleveraging while 9698.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 9698.HK invests at 39.81%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-14.33%
We cut SG&A while 9698.HK invests at 193.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.