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.
14.15%
Revenue growth under 50% of 8028.HK's 764.23%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
134.71%
Positive gross profit growth while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
75.90%
EBIT growth 75-90% of 8028.HK's 88.00%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
71.08%
Positive operating income growth while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
69.97%
Net income growth comparable to 8028.HK's 76.62%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
69.91%
EPS growth similar to 8028.HK's 76.61%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
69.91%
Similar diluted EPS growth to 8028.HK's 76.61%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
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.
89.45%
10Y CAGR of 89.45% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
89.45%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
76.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8028.HK's 5249.68%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 8028.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-100.00%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
100.00%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-521.69%
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.
-521.69%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8028.HK is 55.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-142.76%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8028.HK is 63.16%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
191.58%
Equity/share CAGR of 191.58% while 8028.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
191.58%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while 8028.HK is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
66.62%
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.
-100.00%
Firm’s AR is declining while 8028.HK shows 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
100.00%
We show growth while 8028.HK is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-100.00%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-100.00%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-100.00%
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.
-38.49%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.