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.
-65.89%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-75.27%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-143.06%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-144.21%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-146.51%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-146.81%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-146.81%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.00%
Diluted share change of 0.00% while 6617.T is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
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.
-86.04%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 6617.T stands at 14.80%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-37.58%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 6617.T stands at 14.80%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-6.46%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 6617.T stands at 14.80%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
100.00%
OCF/share CAGR of 100.00% while 6617.T is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
91.24%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x 6617.T's 32.00% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
57.94%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x 6617.T's 32.00%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-150.33%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 6617.T is 32.00%. 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.
208.94%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while 6617.T is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
15.17%
Positive short-term equity growth while 6617.T is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-28.25%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
44.95%
Inventory growth well above 6617.T's 9.20%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.40%
Positive asset growth while 6617.T is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-4.48%
We have a declining book value while 6617.T shows 0.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
45.19%
We have some new debt while 6617.T reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-100.00%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
35.66%
SG&A declining or stable vs. 6617.T's 118.99%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.