PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
1536.00 - 1565.00
1090.00 - 1784.00
46.2K / 155.6K (Avg.)
23.48 | 66.41
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.
172.45%
Revenue growth above 1.5x 5715.T's 5.79%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
100.26%
Positive gross profit growth while 5715.T is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
710.40%
Positive EBIT growth while 5715.T is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
898.49%
Positive operating income growth while 5715.T is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
233.87%
Positive net income growth while 5715.T is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
233.92%
Positive EPS growth while 5715.T is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
233.92%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 5715.T is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.00%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
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.
-90.00%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-90.00%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-87.03%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 5715.T stands at 34.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 5715.T stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
105.34%
Positive 10Y CAGR while 5715.T is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
105.34%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 5715.T is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-79.44%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 5715.T is 69.34%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-86.04%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
-11.07%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-6.23%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
6.01%
Positive BV/share change while 5715.T is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-20.84%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
148.14%
SG&A growth of 148.14% while 5715.T is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.