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.
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.
7.80%
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.
-41.29%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 280.80%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-62.84%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 113.90%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-100.00%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 8095.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-220.39%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 8095.HK is at 6536.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-111.68%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-613.11%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 8095.HK is 57.97%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
37.14%
Below 50% of 8095.HK's 210.54%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-6.15%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 8095.HK is at 17.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-42.61%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while 8095.HK is at 16.84%. 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.
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.