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.
48.57%
Revenue growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 19.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
8.32%
Gross profit growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 23.23%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
120.34%
EBIT growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 71.20%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
184.60%
Operating income growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 68.67%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
122.46%
Net income growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 289.22%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
112.50%
EPS growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 300.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
112.50%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 300.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
3.67%
Share change of 3.67% while 8095.HK is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
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.
38.84%
10Y CAGR of 38.84% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
38.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8095.HK's 177.14%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
38.84%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of 8095.HK's 60.08%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
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.
-72.76%
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.
-72.76%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is 938.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-72.76%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK is 46.39%. 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.
-2.13%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.