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 above 1.5x 8070.HK's 2.54%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
134.71%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 23.69%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
75.90%
EBIT growth below 50% of 8070.HK's 912.81%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
71.08%
Operating income growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 9.64%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
69.97%
Net income growth under 50% of 8070.HK's 975.76%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
69.91%
EPS growth under 50% of 8070.HK's 1000.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
69.91%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of 8070.HK's 1000.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
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 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
89.45%
5Y CAGR of 89.45% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
76.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x 8070.HK's 22.40%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-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%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of 8070.HK's 135.89%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
-521.69%
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.
-521.69%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8070.HK is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-142.76%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8070.HK is 117.51%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
191.58%
Equity/share CAGR of 191.58% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
191.58%
Equity/share CAGR of 191.58% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
66.62%
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%
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.
-38.49%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.