PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
0.00 - 0.01
0.00 - 0.02
1.30M / 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.
5.36%
Positive revenue growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
15.75%
Positive gross profit growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
34.85%
Positive EBIT growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
34.85%
Positive operating income growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-100.00%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-100.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-100.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
69.26%
Share count expansion well above LBL.AX's 2.48%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
46.43%
Diluted share count expanding well above LBL.AX's 2.48%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-23.93%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
5424.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LBL.AX's 228.01%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-89.62%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LBL.AX stands at 25.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
95.16%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LBL.AX's 45.65%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-123.87%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.00%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
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.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-85.69%
We cut SG&A while LBL.AX invests at 28.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.