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.
14.15%
Positive revenue growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
134.71%
Positive gross profit growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
75.90%
Positive EBIT growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
71.08%
Positive operating income growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
69.97%
Net income growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 157.56%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
69.91%
EPS growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 157.49%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
69.91%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 157.49%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
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.
89.45%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8095.HK's 1145.93%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
89.45%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of 8095.HK's 163.12%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
76.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to 8095.HK's 72.28%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-100.00%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-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%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-521.69%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 436.47%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-521.69%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is 1184.80%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-142.76%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
191.58%
Equity/share CAGR of 191.58% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
191.58%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 78.13%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
66.62%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x 8095.HK's 34.75%. 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%
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.
-38.49%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.