Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Lotus Technology Inc.
How Lotus Technology Inc. stacks up
LOT · against 1,585 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Growth
62/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #596 of 1,586 · scores higher than 62% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score158 peers with a growth score of 60–69, including LOT · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 62?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its 3-year revenue growth, which is stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- slower revenue growth over the last year: weaker than 99% of peers. Revenue growth: -43.8% vs peer median 3.7%
- Still loss-making, but the loss per share narrowed. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 4.2%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 100% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 278.7% vs peer median 4.3%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = LOT, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | LOT | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 1,593 reported | -43.8% | 3.7% | 1% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 1,125 reported | Not reported | 4.1% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 1,578 reported | 278.7% | 4.3% | 100% | 33% |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around LOT| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 158.6B CNY (≈$22.2B) | 100 | 60 | |
| 1 | 1.3B MYR (≈$277M) | 100 | 60 | |
| 1 | 241M MYR (≈$53M) | 100 | 86 | |
| 1 | 184.4B HKD (≈$23.6B) | 100 | 91 | |
| 1 | 177.5B INR (≈$2.1B) | 100 | ||
| 596 | 192.0B JPY (≈$1.3B) | 62 | 71 | |
| 596 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score