PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
0.07 - 0.07
0.04 - 0.15
840.0K / 2.59M (Avg.)
-2.33 | -0.03
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.
-19.20%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-19.30%
Negative gross profit growth while 8028.HK is at 101.49%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-139.71%
Negative EBIT growth while 8028.HK is at 34.97%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-142.56%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-158.05%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-177.78%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-177.78%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-25.00%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-25.00%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
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.
7.11%
10Y CAGR of 7.11% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
7.11%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
7.11%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-236.61%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 8028.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-236.61%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 8028.HK is at 1029.19%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-236.61%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8028.HK stands at 267.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-273.71%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8028.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-273.71%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-273.71%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8028.HK is 31.67%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
75.00%
Equity/share CAGR of 75.00% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
75.00%
Equity/share CAGR of 75.00% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
75.00%
Positive short-term equity growth while 8028.HK 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.
-19.15%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-26.51%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
22.54%
Positive BV/share change while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
22.21%
We have some new debt while 8028.HK reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
69.18%
SG&A growth well above 8028.HK's 128.14%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.