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.
48.57%
Revenue growth similar to 8028.HK's 52.93%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
8.32%
Gross profit growth under 50% of 8028.HK's 81.93%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
120.34%
EBIT growth above 1.5x 8028.HK's 9.21%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
184.60%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of 8028.HK's 292.30%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
122.46%
Positive net income growth while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
112.50%
Positive EPS growth while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
112.50%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
3.67%
Share count expansion well above 8028.HK's 0.01%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
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.
38.84%
10Y CAGR of 38.84% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
38.84%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
38.84%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
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.
-72.76%
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.
-72.76%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-72.76%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8028.HK is 82.28%. 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.
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.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.13%
We cut SG&A while 8028.HK invests at 34.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.