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.
-28.08%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-46.01%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
182.93%
EBIT growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 88.78%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
82.95%
Positive operating income growth while 8070.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
167.65%
Net income growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 72.12%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
163.64%
EPS growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 72.27%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
163.64%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 72.27%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
1.52%
Share change of 1.52% while 8070.HK is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
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.
-21.93%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 8070.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-21.93%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 8070.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-21.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8070.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-100.00%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 8070.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 8070.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-100.00%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8070.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-77.48%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8070.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-77.48%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8070.HK is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-77.48%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8070.HK is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
299.61%
Equity/share CAGR of 299.61% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
299.61%
Equity/share CAGR of 299.61% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
299.61%
Equity/share CAGR of 299.61% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
100.00%
We show growth while 8070.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.
-51.58%
We cut SG&A while 8070.HK invests at 22.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.