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.
-53.88%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-6.32%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
118.21%
Positive EBIT growth while PLUG is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
118.21%
Positive operating income growth while PLUG is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
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.
26.49%
Share count expansion well above PLUG's 0.32%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
60.93%
Diluted share count expanding well above PLUG's 0.32%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
130.13%
Positive OCF growth while PLUG is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-46.67%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
188.14%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while PLUG is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
4125.22%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PLUG is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
129.75%
OCF/share CAGR of 129.75% while PLUG is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
148.45%
OCF/share CAGR of 148.45% while PLUG is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-5.76%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while PLUG is at 32.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
141.41%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PLUG's 32.74%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
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.
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.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
382.46%
We increase R&D while PLUG cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
89.07%
We expand SG&A while PLUG cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.