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.
-19.65%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.11%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-140.60%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-140.60%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-103.99%
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.
-16.26%
Share reduction while XRF.AX is at 1.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-12.92%
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.
-23.93%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-23.16%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-78.54%
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.
-49.63%
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.
4.52%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of XRF.AX's 49.22%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
151.16%
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.
407.95%
Below 50% of XRF.AX's 1139.05%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
31.81%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of XRF.AX's 144.47%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
98.36%
Below 50% of XRF.AX's 198.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-146.54%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while XRF.AX is 195.12%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
84.00%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x XRF.AX's 72.97%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1408.92%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 30.57%. 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.
-0.38%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-7.37%
Inventory is declining while XRF.AX stands at 4.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.51%
Positive asset growth while XRF.AX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
39.13%
Positive BV/share change while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-58.69%
We’re deleveraging while XRF.AX stands at 35.08%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-100.00%
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.
42.47%
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.