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.
-9.83%
Negative revenue growth while 8095.HK stands at 48.11%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
126.59%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 37.84%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
47.98%
EBIT growth below 50% of 8095.HK's 250.80%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
42.24%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of 8095.HK's 61.02%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
38.63%
Net income growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 82.05%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
38.97%
EPS growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 82.42%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
38.97%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of 8095.HK's 82.42%. 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.
40.29%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8095.HK's 928.23%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
40.29%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 8095.HK's 134.42%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
40.29%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to 8095.HK's 44.20%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
866.91%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
866.91%
Positive OCF/share growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
866.91%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-22.55%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 504.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-22.55%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is 163.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-22.55%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
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.
6.55%
SG&A declining or stable vs. 8095.HK's 15.16%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.