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.
0.95%
Positive revenue growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-6.92%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-42.00%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-42.00%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
94.54%
Positive net income growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
50.00%
Positive EPS growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
100.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
44.17%
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.
37.23%
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.
267.68%
Positive OCF growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
290.19%
Positive FCF growth while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-77.63%
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.
-47.51%
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.
-8.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LBL.AX stands at 25.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
156.32%
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.
439.03%
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.
214.30%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
134.43%
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.
877.36%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
772.00%
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.
18383.98%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LBL.AX's 29.77%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-22.84%
Firm’s AR is declining while LBL.AX shows 32.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-13.53%
Inventory is declining while LBL.AX stands at 6.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
16.39%
Positive asset growth while LBL.AX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
22.11%
Positive BV/share change while LBL.AX is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
48.69%
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.
-4.79%
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.