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.
-35.79%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
987.72%
Positive gross profit growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
165.89%
Positive EBIT growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
165.89%
Positive operating income growth while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
479.74%
Net income growth above 1.5x XRF.AX's 13.78%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.46%
Share reduction while XRF.AX is at 1.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.46%
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.
-163.38%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-201.42%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
10.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of XRF.AX's 151.40%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
119.97%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 74.52%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-28.44%
Negative 3Y CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 49.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-1016.95%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while XRF.AX stands at 132.15%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-462.70%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while XRF.AX is at 1139.05%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-47.31%
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.
336.32%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 198.79% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
1037.50%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x XRF.AX's 195.12%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-62.50%
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.
99.31%
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.
55.73%
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.
22.72%
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.
30.13%
Inventory growth well above XRF.AX's 4.59%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-0.81%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
8.82%
Positive BV/share change while XRF.AX is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-10.95%
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.
133.02%
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.