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.
-40.37%
Negative revenue growth while 9698.HK stands at 13.39%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
4.11%
Gross profit growth under 50% of 9698.HK's 11.88%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
331.61%
Positive operating income growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
122.84%
Positive net income growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
123.08%
Positive EPS growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
123.08%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.87%
Share reduction while 9698.HK is at 2.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.87%
Reduced diluted shares while 9698.HK is at 2.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-52.62%
Negative OCF growth while 9698.HK is at 87.24%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-52.45%
Negative FCF growth while 9698.HK is at 2.22%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-28.92%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-28.39%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
5.64%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
782.75%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x 9698.HK's 92.61%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
157.26%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x 9698.HK's 92.61%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
104.13%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x 9698.HK's 92.61%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
-68.71%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 9698.HK is at 89.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-46.68%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 9698.HK is 89.63%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-57.80%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 9698.HK is 89.63%. 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.
6.34%
Equity/share CAGR of 6.34% while 9698.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
-4.80%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while 9698.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
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.
-100.00%
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.
-37.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while 9698.HK shows 13.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-50.48%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-41.20%
Negative asset growth while 9698.HK invests at 31.22%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
2.14%
Positive BV/share change while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-70.86%
We’re deleveraging while 9698.HK stands at 53.47%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while 9698.HK invests at 19.80%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-33.26%
We cut SG&A while 9698.HK invests at 21.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.