PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
1.43 - 1.45
1.18 - 2.36
880.0K / 1.73M (Avg.)
-18.00 | -0.08
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.
-9.89%
Negative revenue growth while 1475.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.07%
Negative gross profit growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-83.31%
Negative EBIT growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-81.90%
Negative operating income growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-80.77%
Negative net income growth while 1475.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.07%
Share change of 0.07% while 1475.HK is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.07%
Diluted share change of 0.07% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
81.69%
Dividend growth of 81.69% while 1475.HK is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-50.82%
Negative OCF growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-226.06%
Negative FCF growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.01%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 1475.HK's 38.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-7.62%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-17.87%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
136.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 136.10% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
108.82%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-26.24%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
60.13%
Dividend/share CAGR of 60.13% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-15.38%
We cut SG&A while 1475.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.