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.
-20.05%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
34.37%
Positive gross profit growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
2053.11%
Positive EBIT growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
456.26%
Operating income growth above 1.5x 8095.HK's 85.75%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
712.98%
Positive net income growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
725.00%
Positive EPS growth while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
725.00%
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 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.
130.57%
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.
195.33%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
21.71%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
132.25%
Below 50% of 8095.HK's 328.44%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
931.49%
Positive 5Y CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
155.08%
Positive short-term CAGR while 8095.HK is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
249.92%
Equity/share CAGR of 249.92% while 8095.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-12.44%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 8095.HK is at 46.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
20.01%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x 8095.HK's 15.02%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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%
Firm’s AR is declining while 8095.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-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.
-10.26%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.