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%
Positive revenue growth while ECL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
41.98%
Positive gross profit growth while ECL.AX is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-161.22%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-161.22%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-79.96%
Negative net income growth while ECL.AX stands at 0.35%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-100.00%
Negative EPS growth while ECL.AX is at 1.65%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-100.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ECL.AX is at 2.07%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
66.97%
Slight or no buybacks while ECL.AX is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
32.89%
Slight or no buyback while ECL.AX is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.40%
OCF growth under 50% of ECL.AX's 288.63%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
7.68%
FCF growth under 50% of ECL.AX's 338.23%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-86.67%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-76.60%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-59.45%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
135.38%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while ECL.AX is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
848.87%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ECL.AX's 24.46%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
17250.63%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ECL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
100.59%
Positive 10Y CAGR while ECL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
100.74%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ECL.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
411.72%
Positive short-term CAGR while ECL.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 ECL.AX shows 4.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
16.10%
We show growth while ECL.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 ECL.AX's 3.71%. 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 ECL.AX shows 2.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
78.87%
Debt growth of 78.87% while ECL.AX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
100.04%
R&D growth of 100.04% while ECL.AX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
11.35%
We expand SG&A while ECL.AX cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.