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.
15.82%
Revenue growth under 50% of 8028.HK's 482.56%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-41.31%
Negative gross profit growth while 8028.HK is at 7.45%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
0.75%
EBIT growth below 50% of 8028.HK's 60.05%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
51.95%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x 8028.HK's 44.95%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
-4.38%
Negative net income growth while 8028.HK stands at 79.79%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-10.00%
Negative EPS growth while 8028.HK is at 79.63%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while 8028.HK is at 79.63%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
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.
33.71%
10Y CAGR of 33.71% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
33.71%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
33.71%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
100.00%
OCF/share CAGR of 100.00% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
100.00%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to 8028.HK's 100.00%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
100.00%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
113.90%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 113.90% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
113.90%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x 8028.HK's 95.33%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
113.90%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x 8028.HK's 79.28%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
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.
-48.06%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.