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.
0.95%
Revenue growth under 50% of ANO.AX's 62.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-6.92%
Negative gross profit growth while ANO.AX is at 251.94%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-42.00%
Negative EBIT growth while ANO.AX is at 155.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-42.00%
Negative operating income growth while ANO.AX is at 648.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
94.54%
Net income growth at 50-75% of ANO.AX's 161.71%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
50.00%
EPS growth under 50% of ANO.AX's 161.29%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
100.00%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of ANO.AX's 161.54%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
44.17%
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.
37.23%
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.
267.68%
Positive OCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
290.19%
Positive FCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-77.63%
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.
-47.51%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-8.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 6.96%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
156.32%
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.
439.03%
Positive OCF/share growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
214.30%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ANO.AX's 878.66%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
134.43%
Below 50% of ANO.AX's 4293.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
877.36%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
772.00%
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.
18383.98%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ANO.AX's 0.05%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-22.84%
Firm’s AR is declining while ANO.AX shows 53.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-13.53%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
16.39%
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.
22.11%
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.
48.69%
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.
-4.79%
We cut SG&A while ANO.AX invests at 14.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.