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.
-2.76%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
2.97%
Positive gross profit growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
71.06%
Positive operating income growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
136.02%
Positive net income growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
135.09%
Positive EPS growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
135.09%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
2.81%
Share count expansion well above 9698.HK's 0.08%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.75%
Diluted share count expanding well above 9698.HK's 0.08%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
2829.79%
Dividend growth of 2829.79% while 9698.HK is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-472.46%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-449.59%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
18.49%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
3.24%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
23.17%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-1171.24%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 9698.HK stands at 64.40%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-39.56%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 9698.HK is at 64.40%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-452.60%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 9698.HK stands at 64.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-97.91%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 9698.HK is at 89.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-96.95%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 9698.HK is 89.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-95.95%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 9698.HK is 89.97%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
22.47%
Equity/share CAGR of 22.47% while 9698.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
8.51%
Equity/share CAGR of 8.51% 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.
-75.69%
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.
-57.17%
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.
0.99%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. 9698.HK's 18.05%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-19.74%
Inventory is declining while 9698.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-7.06%
Negative asset growth while 9698.HK invests at 17.50%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.52%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
17.00%
Debt growth far above 9698.HK's 22.72%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-16.72%
We cut SG&A while 9698.HK invests at 1.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.