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.
10.34%
Positive revenue growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
41.98%
Positive gross profit growth while LBL.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%
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.
66.97%
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.
32.89%
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.
3.40%
Positive OCF growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
7.68%
Positive FCF growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-86.67%
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.
-76.60%
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.
-59.45%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LBL.AX stands at 25.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
135.38%
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.
848.87%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LBL.AX's 30.04%. 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 LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
100.59%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of LBL.AX's 196.67%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
100.74%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
411.72%
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.
-58.18%
Firm’s AR is declining while LBL.AX shows 32.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
16.10%
Inventory growth well above LBL.AX's 6.76%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
12.10%
Positive asset growth while LBL.AX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-23.37%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
78.87%
We have some new debt while LBL.AX reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
100.04%
We increase R&D while LBL.AX cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
11.35%
SG&A declining or stable vs. LBL.AX's 28.87%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.