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.
-43.38%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-13.32%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-1619.64%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
79.44%
Positive operating income growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
341.06%
Net income growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 114.78%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
350.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 114.84%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
350.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 114.84%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
40.57%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8095.HK's 827.86%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
40.57%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8095.HK's 112.27%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
40.57%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of 8095.HK's 60.40%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-100.00%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 726.75%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-100.00%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-100.00%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-69.31%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 207.71%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-69.31%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is 824.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-69.31%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK is 2.93%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
307.34%
Equity/share CAGR of 307.34% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
307.34%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 88.12%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
307.34%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 52.76%. 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.
-100.00%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-100.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-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.
-16.39%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.