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.
-10.31%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-20.84%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
11.25%
Positive EBIT growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
11.25%
Positive operating income growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-11.48%
Negative net income growth while XRF.AX stands at 13.78%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-25.00%
Negative EPS growth while XRF.AX is at 12.54%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.20%
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.
-3.09%
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.
260.14%
Positive OCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
209.36%
Positive FCF growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-37.28%
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.
145.79%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 74.52%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
160.72%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 49.22%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
127.83%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with XRF.AX's 132.15%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
278.97%
Below 50% of XRF.AX's 1139.05%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
253.00%
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.
193.55%
Similar net income/share CAGR to XRF.AX's 198.79%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
123.72%
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.
3.87%
Below 50% of XRF.AX's 72.97%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
719.84%
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.
104.09%
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.
-91.28%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
121.34%
Inventory growth well above XRF.AX's 4.59%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
15.40%
Positive asset growth while XRF.AX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
14.90%
Positive BV/share change while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-9.29%
We’re deleveraging while XRF.AX stands at 35.08%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
30.83%
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.