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.
10.34%
Revenue growth under 50% of ANO.AX's 62.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
41.98%
Gross profit growth under 50% of ANO.AX's 251.94%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-161.22%
Negative EBIT growth while ANO.AX is at 155.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-161.22%
Negative operating income growth while ANO.AX is at 648.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-79.96%
Negative net income growth while ANO.AX stands at 161.71%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-100.00%
Negative EPS growth while ANO.AX is at 161.29%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-100.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ANO.AX is at 161.54%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
66.97%
Share count expansion well above ANO.AX's 0.62%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
32.89%
Diluted share count expanding well above ANO.AX's 0.46%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.40%
Positive OCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
7.68%
Positive FCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-86.67%
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.
-76.60%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-59.45%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 6.96%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
135.38%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ANO.AX's 77.99%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
848.87%
Positive OCF/share growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
17250.63%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ANO.AX's 878.66%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
100.59%
Below 50% of ANO.AX's 4293.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
100.74%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
411.72%
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.
-58.18%
Firm’s AR is declining while ANO.AX shows 53.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
16.10%
We show growth while ANO.AX is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
12.10%
Asset growth above 1.5x ANO.AX's 3.20%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-23.37%
We have a declining book value while ANO.AX shows 2.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
78.87%
We have some new debt while ANO.AX reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
100.04%
We increase R&D while ANO.AX cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
11.35%
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.