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.
-19.26%
Negative revenue growth while LBL.AX stands at 14.69%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-20.12%
Negative gross profit growth while LBL.AX is at 10.27%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-99.81%
Negative EBIT growth while LBL.AX is at 1.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-99.81%
Negative operating income growth while LBL.AX is at 1.61%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-136.77%
Negative net income growth while LBL.AX stands at 90.75%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-100.00%
Negative EPS growth while LBL.AX is at 80.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-100.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LBL.AX is at 80.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
8.80%
Share count expansion well above LBL.AX's 3.21%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
8.80%
Diluted share count expanding well above LBL.AX's 3.21%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-110.07%
Negative OCF growth while LBL.AX is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-370.56%
Negative FCF growth while LBL.AX is at 2.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-43.03%
Negative 5Y CAGR while LBL.AX stands at 165.50%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-24.94%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LBL.AX stands at 165.50%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
95.28%
OCF/share CAGR of 95.28% while LBL.AX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
96.04%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 96.04% while LBL.AX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
96.53%
Similar net income/share CAGR to LBL.AX's 96.04%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
20.63%
Below 50% of LBL.AX's 96.04%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
50.80%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of LBL.AX's 96.04%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term 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.
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.
137.94%
R&D dropping or stable vs. LBL.AX's 325.25%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-40.51%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.