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.
-1.30%
Negative revenue growth while 8095.HK stands at 188.04%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-16.70%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-145.58%
Negative EBIT growth while 8095.HK is at 75.99%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
46.48%
Positive operating income growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-24.90%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-24.39%
Negative EPS growth while 8095.HK is at 84.70%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-24.39%
Negative diluted EPS growth while 8095.HK is at 84.70%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
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 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-100.00%
Negative FCF growth while 8095.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
80.17%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of 8095.HK's 146.11%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
80.17%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
130.78%
Positive 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-259.42%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-259.42%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-808.05%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
109.89%
Equity/share CAGR of 109.89% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
109.89%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x 8095.HK's 88.81%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
-47.48%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while 8095.HK is at 47.76%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
-10.27%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.