Looks like a pretty straightforward PQ developer without any weird bells or whistles. The only odd thing is that they seem to use hydroxide as the accelerator, which I'd expect makes it kind of temperamental in that it's not as well buffered as a typical carbonate developer. Hence, it'll easily drop in pH if lots of film or paper is run through it without replenishment, reducing its activity. But that's guesswork on my behalf.
I never heard of it before; looks like perfectly fine product. If you work out any reliable development times, you could consider submitting them to the Massive Dev Chart for inclusion.
Although the components are listed in the safety data sheet, the percentages are always a bandwidth, so it's hard to tell if this is e.g. comparable to something like Ilford PQ Universal. And there's the issue with the hydroxide while virtually all commercial developers of a similar application are carbonate-based, which will make comparisons a little different.
What I sometimes do is determine the development time that's equivalent to a developer that's better documented and then use the ratio between these times as a starting point to determine the time for a third film. For instance, I might determine that for Fomapan 400 I'd need a development time of let's say 10 minutes while D76 requires 12 minutes. The ratio is 1:1.2. If I then want to develop e.g. TMX which might have a time in the list for, I dunno, 8 minutes for D76, I could divide 8 by 1.2 (=6.67) and then try 6.5 to 7 minutes for the new developer and see what I get. While this won't be perfect, it's a good approximation and for my practice, it's virtually always good enough.