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.
-46.72%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-65.99%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-875.00%
Negative EBIT growth while 8070.HK is at 4.59%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
46.72%
Operating income growth above 1.5x 8070.HK's 4.51%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-292.43%
Negative net income growth while 8070.HK stands at 3.74%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-295.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-295.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
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 companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-100.00%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
21.55%
10Y CAGR of 21.55% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
-13.53%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 8070.HK stands at 202.67%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-32.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8070.HK stands at 365.25%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-346.79%
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.
-904.05%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8070.HK is 395.23%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-54.81%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8070.HK is 445.68%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
276.02%
Equity/share CAGR of 276.02% while 8070.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-7.69%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 8070.HK is at 33.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
79.15%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x 8070.HK's 57.01%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-52.58%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.