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.
-43.38%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-13.32%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-1619.64%
Negative EBIT growth while 8070.HK is at 19.79%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
79.44%
Positive operating income growth while 8070.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
341.06%
Net income growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 12.00%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
350.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 12.26%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
350.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 12.26%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
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.
40.57%
10Y CAGR of 40.57% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
40.57%
5Y CAGR of 40.57% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
40.57%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 8070.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-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 2.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-69.31%
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.
-69.31%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8070.HK is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-69.31%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8070.HK is 21.48%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
307.34%
Equity/share CAGR of 307.34% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
307.34%
Equity/share CAGR of 307.34% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
307.34%
Positive short-term equity growth while 8070.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%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-100.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-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.
-16.39%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.