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.
22.39%
Positive revenue growth while PLUG is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.26%
Positive gross profit growth while PLUG is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-4.78%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-4.78%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-45.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-50.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-50.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-6.74%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-6.33%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-124.17%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
37.44%
Positive FCF growth while PLUG is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-67.18%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
1.70%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PLUG is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
23.51%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of PLUG's 135.89%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
88.10%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with PLUG's 93.98%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
-117.41%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while PLUG is at 13.35%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-124.87%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
106.06%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PLUG's 96.29%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
133.33%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PLUG's 50.52%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
100.00%
Positive short-term CAGR while PLUG is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
9648.54%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PLUG's 37.35%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
260.24%
Positive short-term equity growth while PLUG is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
4.39%
Our AR growth while PLUG is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-11.17%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
0.02%
Asset growth well under 50% of PLUG's 10.15%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
13.30%
Positive BV/share change while PLUG is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
2.27%
Debt shrinking faster vs. PLUG's 53.27%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while PLUG invests at 0.16%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
17.47%
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.