PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
0.00 - 0.01
0.00 - 0.02
1.30M / 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.
1725.48%
Revenue growth above 1.5x ANO.AX's 62.13%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
2308.06%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x ANO.AX's 251.94%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
51.14%
EBIT growth below 50% of ANO.AX's 155.25%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
51.14%
Operating income growth under 50% of ANO.AX's 648.74%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
37.21%
Net income growth under 50% of ANO.AX's 161.71%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key 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.
-5.82%
Share reduction while ANO.AX is at 0.62%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-18.99%
Reduced diluted shares while ANO.AX is at 0.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
45.04%
Positive OCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
14.87%
Positive FCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-89.32%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 223.10%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-78.78%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-70.24%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 6.96%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-45.41%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
580.42%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of ANO.AX's 878.66%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
-101.15%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ANO.AX is at 4293.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
23.00%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
87.68%
Positive short-term CAGR while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
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.
-11.84%
Firm’s AR is declining while ANO.AX shows 53.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
7.77%
We show growth while ANO.AX is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.48%
Asset growth well under 50% of ANO.AX's 3.20%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1432.90%
BV/share growth above 1.5x ANO.AX's 2.14%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
6.03%
We have some new debt while ANO.AX reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-50.09%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
145.68%
SG&A growth well above ANO.AX's 14.86%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.