PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
0.00 - 0.01
0.00 - 0.02
289 / 496.9K (Avg.)
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.
-1.28%
Negative revenue growth while ANO.AX stands at 77.77%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-0.16%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
7.61%
EBIT growth above 1.5x ANO.AX's 3.44%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
7.61%
Operating income growth above 1.5x ANO.AX's 3.44%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-14.06%
Negative net income growth while ANO.AX stands at 10.23%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
19.57%
Share count expansion well above ANO.AX's 24.13%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
19.57%
Diluted share count expanding well above ANO.AX's 24.13%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
30.09%
OCF growth of 30.09% while ANO.AX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
26.35%
FCF growth above 1.5x ANO.AX's 16.31%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
424.83%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ANO.AX's 135.77%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
-91.33%
Negative 5Y CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 135.77%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-48.01%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 135.77%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
93.13%
OCF/share CAGR of 93.13% while ANO.AX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
-121.25%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ANO.AX is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
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.
-111.18%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ANO.AX is 23.97%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
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.
-16.62%
Our R&D shrinks while ANO.AX invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-310.53%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.