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.
-16.32%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-14.32%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-67.18%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-67.18%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-175.62%
Negative net income growth while XRF.AX stands at 13.78%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-200.00%
Negative EPS growth while XRF.AX is at 12.54%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-200.00%
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.
14.57%
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.
13.52%
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.
135.18%
Positive OCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
107.63%
Positive FCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-77.23%
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.
-9.90%
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.
36.51%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of XRF.AX's 49.22%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-89.51%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 132.15%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-58.37%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while XRF.AX is at 1139.05%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-87.67%
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.
49.18%
Below 50% of XRF.AX's 198.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-32.00%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while XRF.AX is 195.12%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1200.00%
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.
25549.17%
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.
265.66%
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.
-77.83%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
49.04%
Inventory growth well above XRF.AX's 4.59%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
5.45%
Positive asset growth while XRF.AX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-22.22%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.16%
Debt shrinking faster vs. XRF.AX's 35.08%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
55.65%
R&D growth of 55.65% while XRF.AX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
15.36%
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.