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.
-5.62%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
76.68%
Positive gross profit growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
69.87%
EBIT growth below 50% of 8095.HK's 742.10%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
119.54%
Positive operating income growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
50.86%
Positive net income growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
50.60%
Positive EPS growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
50.60%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling 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.
-100.00%
Negative OCF growth while 8095.HK is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-100.00%
Negative FCF growth while 8095.HK is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
37.08%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
37.08%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
65.32%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
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.
-164.98%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 306.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-164.98%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-176.38%
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.
1.05%
We expand SG&A while 8095.HK cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.