PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
1.44 - 1.45
1.18 - 2.36
71.0K / 1.73M (Avg.)
-18.12 | -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.
37.14%
Positive revenue growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
34.50%
Positive gross profit growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-29.21%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
8.25%
Positive operating income growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-28.65%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-30.77%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-30.77%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.24%
Slight or no buybacks while 1475.HK is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.24%
Diluted share count expanding well above 1475.HK's 0.00%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.56%
Negative OCF growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-1.94%
Negative FCF growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-3.78%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 1475.HK stands at 7.50%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
11301.73%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x 1475.HK's 7.50%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
543.21%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x 1475.HK's 3.71%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-154.74%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 1475.HK stands at 7.19%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
29.96%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x 1475.HK's 7.19%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-90.57%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-552.26%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-1545.34%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
40.64%
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.
-13.62%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-40.12%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Firm’s AR is declining while 1475.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
20.44%
Inventory growth of 20.44% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-4.34%
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.
-8.62%
We have a declining book value while 1475.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
24.79%
Debt growth of 24.79% 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.
-57.76%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.