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.
-37.40%
Negative revenue growth while ANO.AX stands at 62.13%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
129.53%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of ANO.AX's 251.94%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
556.16%
EBIT growth above 1.5x ANO.AX's 155.25%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
556.16%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of ANO.AX's 648.74%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
-88.90%
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.
306.15%
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.
9.27%
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.
126.09%
Positive OCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
111.67%
Positive FCF growth while ANO.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-64.35%
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.
-38.26%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-75.66%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ANO.AX stands at 6.96%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
6692.19%
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.
-75.19%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-88.30%
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.
582.30%
Below 50% of ANO.AX's 4293.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-95.35%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-97.71%
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.
-53.25%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while ANO.AX is at 53.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-66.93%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while ANO.AX is at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-72.70%
Firm’s AR is declining while ANO.AX shows 53.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
136.98%
We show growth while ANO.AX is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
37.29%
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.
-75.05%
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.
69.85%
We have some new debt while ANO.AX reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
93.56%
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.