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.
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.
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.
60.26%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to 1475.HK's 55.81%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
20.34%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of 1475.HK's 38.71%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
25.13%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
151.98%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
143.63%
OCF/share CAGR of 143.63% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
171.92%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 171.92% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
377.96%
Positive 10Y CAGR while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
297.91%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
239.99%
Positive short-term CAGR while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
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.
-21.77%
Cut dividends over 10 years while 1475.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-61.21%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while 1475.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.