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.
52.04%
Positive revenue growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
31.81%
Positive gross profit growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-83.21%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-70.86%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-123.88%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-123.53%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-123.53%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
149.75%
10Y CAGR of 149.75% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
149.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x 8095.HK's 120.75%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
149.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 59.00%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
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.
-105.67%
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.
-105.67%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-105.67%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
185.23%
Equity/share CAGR of 185.23% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
185.23%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 81.48%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
185.23%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 62.60%. 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.
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.
49.37%
SG&A growth well above 8095.HK's 53.16%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.