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.
-28.08%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-46.01%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
182.93%
EBIT growth 75-90% of 8095.HK's 204.59%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
82.95%
Operating income growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 3924.85%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
167.65%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x 8095.HK's 126.71%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
163.64%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x 8095.HK's 127.52%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
163.64%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x 8095.HK's 127.52%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
1.52%
Slight or no buybacks while 8095.HK is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
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.
-21.93%
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.
-21.93%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 198.24%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-21.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 52.80%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-100.00%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 63.98%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-100.00%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 61.65%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-77.48%
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.
-77.48%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is 672.27%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-77.48%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK is 1442.81%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
299.61%
Equity/share CAGR of 299.61% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
299.61%
Equity/share CAGR of 299.61% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
299.61%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 39.89%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.00%
We show growth while 8095.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.
-51.58%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.