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.
22.39%
Positive revenue growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.26%
Positive gross profit growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-4.78%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-4.78%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-45.78%
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.
-6.74%
Share reduction while XRF.AX is at 1.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-6.33%
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.
-124.17%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
37.44%
Positive FCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-67.18%
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.
1.70%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of XRF.AX's 74.52%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
23.51%
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.
88.10%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of XRF.AX's 132.15%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-117.41%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while XRF.AX is at 1139.05%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-124.87%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 144.47%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
106.06%
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.
133.33%
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.
100.00%
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.
9648.54%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 52.04%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
260.24%
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.
4.39%
Our AR growth while XRF.AX is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-11.17%
Inventory is declining while XRF.AX stands at 4.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.02%
Positive asset growth while XRF.AX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
13.30%
Positive BV/share change while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
2.27%
Debt shrinking faster vs. XRF.AX's 35.08%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-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.
17.47%
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.