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.
-16.32%
Negative revenue growth while ANO.AX stands at 62.13%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.32%
Negative gross profit growth while ANO.AX is at 251.94%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-67.18%
Negative EBIT growth while ANO.AX is at 155.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-67.18%
Negative operating income growth while ANO.AX is at 648.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-175.62%
Negative net income growth while ANO.AX stands at 161.71%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-200.00%
Negative EPS growth while ANO.AX is at 161.29%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-200.00%
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.
14.57%
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.
13.52%
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.
135.18%
Positive OCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
107.63%
Positive FCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-77.23%
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.
-9.90%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
36.51%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ANO.AX's 6.96%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-89.51%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 77.99%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-58.37%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-87.67%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 878.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
49.18%
Below 50% of ANO.AX's 4293.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-32.00%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-1200.00%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
25549.17%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ANO.AX's 53.02%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
265.66%
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.
-77.83%
Firm’s AR is declining while ANO.AX shows 53.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
49.04%
We show growth while ANO.AX is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.45%
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.
-22.22%
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.
0.16%
We have some new debt while ANO.AX reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
55.65%
We increase R&D while ANO.AX cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
15.36%
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.