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.
-19.39%
Negative revenue growth while 9698.HK stands at 10.47%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.05%
Negative gross profit growth while 9698.HK is at 23.47%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-49.95%
Negative operating income growth while 9698.HK is at 49.11%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-11.57%
Negative net income growth while 9698.HK stands at 31.81%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-10.80%
Negative EPS growth while 9698.HK is at 35.77%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.80%
Negative diluted EPS growth while 9698.HK is at 35.77%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.83%
Share reduction while 9698.HK is at 8.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.83%
Reduced diluted shares while 9698.HK is at 8.84%. 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.
-125.46%
Negative OCF growth while 9698.HK is at 293.81%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-125.55%
Negative FCF growth while 9698.HK is at 54.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-64.23%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-63.34%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-63.63%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 9698.HK stands at 370.42%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-231.27%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 9698.HK stands at 141.64%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-246.17%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 9698.HK is at 141.64%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
49.50%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of 9698.HK's 2124.37%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-77.53%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 9698.HK is at 91.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-41.50%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 9698.HK is 91.58%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-51.85%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 9698.HK is 9.03%. 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.
2.52%
Equity/share CAGR of 2.52% while 9698.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
-1.93%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while 9698.HK is at 445.46%. 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.
-51.20%
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.
-15.61%
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.
2.61%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. 9698.HK's 19.84%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-13.49%
Inventory is declining while 9698.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-11.95%
Negative asset growth while 9698.HK invests at 3.15%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.49%
Positive BV/share change while 9698.HK is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-60.19%
We’re deleveraging while 9698.HK stands at 3.82%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-100.00%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-18.87%
We cut SG&A while 9698.HK invests at 5.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.