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.
75.69%
Revenue growth of 75.69% while 1475.HK is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a small edge can widen further.
187.44%
Gross profit growth of 187.44% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal improvements could expand further.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.81%
Operating income growth of 1.81% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this modest edge can become significant.
-4.44%
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.
0.00%
Share change of 0.00% while 1475.HK is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-23.07%
Negative OCF growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-58.48%
Negative FCF growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-83.82%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 1475.HK stands at 37.94%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
51804.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x 1475.HK's 37.94%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
2575.51%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x 1475.HK's 37.94%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-146.22%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-138.24%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
31.75%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-804.83%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-742.20%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-307.69%
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.
176.96%
Equity/share CAGR of 176.96% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
6.27%
Equity/share CAGR of 6.27% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while 1475.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
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.
-100.00%
Negative near-term dividend growth while 1475.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-100.00%
Firm’s AR is declining while 1475.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
36.39%
Inventory growth of 36.39% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-2.81%
Negative asset growth while 1475.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.06%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
444.00%
Debt growth of 444.00% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.