PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
1.44 - 1.45
1.18 - 2.36
61.0K / 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.
26.04%
Positive revenue growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
26.47%
Positive gross profit growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
16.15%
Positive EBIT growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
24.41%
Positive operating income growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
13.43%
Positive net income growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
15.79%
Positive EPS growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
15.79%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.75%
Share count expansion well above 1475.HK's 0.22%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.75%
Slight or no buyback while 1475.HK is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
11.35%
OCF growth of 11.35% while 1475.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
-12.85%
Negative FCF growth while 1475.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-13.79%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 1475.HK stands at 16.43%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
1379.14%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x 1475.HK's 12.32%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
551.89%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-122.95%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
56.99%
Positive OCF/share growth while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
44.35%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 1475.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-206.81%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
77.04%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x 1475.HK's 36.48%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-0.95%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 1475.HK is 470.73%. 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.
-36.08%
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.
-28.34%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while 1475.HK is at 2.21%. 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.
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.
40.22%
Inventory growth well above 1475.HK's 16.31%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.35%
Asset growth at 50-75% of 1475.HK's 2.26%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
-8.73%
We have a declining book value while 1475.HK shows 1.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
53.68%
Debt shrinking faster vs. 1475.HK's 178.11%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.18%
We cut SG&A while 1475.HK invests at 1.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.