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.
10.34%
Positive revenue growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
41.98%
Positive gross profit growth while XRF.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%
Negative net income growth while XRF.AX stands at 13.78%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-100.00%
Negative EPS growth while XRF.AX is at 12.54%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-100.00%
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.
66.97%
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.
32.89%
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.
3.40%
Positive OCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
7.68%
Positive FCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-86.67%
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.
-76.60%
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.
-59.45%
Negative 3Y CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 49.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
135.38%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with XRF.AX's 132.15%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
848.87%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of XRF.AX's 1139.05%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
17250.63%
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.
100.59%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of XRF.AX's 198.79%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
100.74%
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.
411.72%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 72.97%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
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%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
16.10%
Inventory growth well above XRF.AX's 4.59%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
12.10%
Positive asset growth while XRF.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%
Debt growth far above XRF.AX's 35.08%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
100.04%
R&D growth of 100.04% while XRF.AX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
11.35%
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.