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.
7.32%
Revenue growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 34.23%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
140.37%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 34.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
308.31%
Positive EBIT growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
320.99%
Positive operating income growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
205.65%
Positive net income growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
179.41%
Positive EPS growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
179.41%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
33.99%
Share count expansion well above 8095.HK's 7.29%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
33.99%
Diluted share count expanding well above 8095.HK's 7.29%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.00%
Positive OCF growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
100.00%
Positive FCF growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-17.08%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-17.08%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 223.57%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-17.08%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 101.35%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
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.
-14.92%
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.
-14.92%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is 429.27%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-14.92%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK is 285.98%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
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.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
33.67%
SG&A growth well above 8095.HK's 5.58%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.