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%
Negative net income growth while XRF.AX stands at 13.78%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-50.00%
Negative EPS growth while XRF.AX is at 12.54%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-50.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while XRF.AX is at 12.54%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-21.50%
Share reduction while XRF.AX is at 1.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-18.24%
Reduced diluted shares while XRF.AX is at 1.24%. 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 XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
159.89%
Positive FCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-79.60%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 151.40%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-73.73%
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.
-42.67%
Negative 3Y CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 49.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
186.98%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x XRF.AX's 132.15%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
11.96%
Below 50% of XRF.AX's 1139.05%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
688.12%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 144.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
113.40%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of XRF.AX's 195.12%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
45.44%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of XRF.AX's 72.97%. 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.
-9.46%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
16.00%
Inventory growth well above XRF.AX's 4.59%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.53%
Positive asset growth while XRF.AX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
99.56%
Positive BV/share change while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
15.85%
Debt shrinking faster vs. XRF.AX's 35.08%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-50.02%
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.
3.76%
We expand SG&A while XRF.AX cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.