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.
-19.18%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-35.15%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-2.26%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.26%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-74.84%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-50.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-50.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-21.50%
Share reduction while LBL.AX is at 2.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-18.24%
Reduced diluted shares while LBL.AX is at 2.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
169.04%
Positive OCF growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
159.89%
Positive FCF growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-79.60%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while LBL.AX stands at 228.01%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-73.73%
Negative 5Y CAGR while LBL.AX stands at 46.12%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-42.67%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LBL.AX stands at 25.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
186.98%
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.
11.96%
Below 50% of LBL.AX's 30.04%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
688.12%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
113.40%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
45.44%
Positive short-term CAGR while LBL.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.
-9.46%
Firm’s AR is declining while LBL.AX shows 32.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
16.00%
Inventory growth well above LBL.AX's 6.76%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.53%
Positive asset growth while LBL.AX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
99.56%
Positive BV/share change while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
15.85%
We have some new debt while LBL.AX reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-50.02%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
3.76%
SG&A declining or stable vs. LBL.AX's 28.87%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.