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.
-19.20%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-19.30%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-139.71%
Negative EBIT growth while 8095.HK is at 51.55%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-142.56%
Negative operating income growth while 8095.HK is at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-158.05%
Negative net income growth while 8095.HK stands at 1276.75%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-177.78%
Negative EPS growth while 8095.HK is at 1433.33%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-177.78%
Negative diluted EPS growth while 8095.HK is at 1433.33%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-25.00%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-25.00%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
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.
7.11%
10Y CAGR of 7.11% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
7.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8095.HK's 378.08%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
7.11%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8095.HK's 76.08%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-236.61%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-236.61%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 1993.09%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-236.61%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 204.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-273.71%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-273.71%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is 457.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-273.71%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK is 1927.69%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
75.00%
Equity/share CAGR of 75.00% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
75.00%
Equity/share CAGR of 75.00% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
75.00%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 48.70%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-19.15%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-26.51%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
22.54%
Positive BV/share change while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
22.21%
We have some new debt while 8095.HK reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
69.18%
We expand SG&A while 8095.HK cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.