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.
-1.28%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-0.16%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
7.61%
Positive EBIT growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
7.61%
Positive operating income growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-14.06%
Negative net income growth while XRF.AX stands at 13.78%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
19.57%
Share count expansion well above XRF.AX's 1.21%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
19.57%
Diluted share count expanding well above XRF.AX's 1.24%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
30.09%
Positive OCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
26.35%
Positive FCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
424.83%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 151.40%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
-91.33%
Negative 5Y CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 74.52%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-48.01%
Negative 3Y CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 49.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
93.13%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of XRF.AX's 132.15%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-121.25%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while XRF.AX is at 1139.05%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
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.
-111.18%
Negative 3Y CAGR while XRF.AX is 72.97%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
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.
-16.62%
Our R&D shrinks while XRF.AX invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-310.53%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.