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.
-16.32%
Negative revenue growth while PLUG stands at 33.16%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.32%
Negative gross profit growth while PLUG is at 173.68%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-67.18%
Negative EBIT growth while PLUG is at 51.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-67.18%
Negative operating income growth while PLUG is at 44.97%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-175.62%
Negative net income growth while PLUG stands at 39.83%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-200.00%
Negative EPS growth while PLUG is at 40.75%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-200.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PLUG is at 40.75%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
14.57%
Share count expansion well above PLUG's 2.16%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
13.52%
Diluted share count expanding well above PLUG's 2.16%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
135.18%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x PLUG's 116.72%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
107.63%
FCF growth similar to PLUG's 107.13%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
-77.23%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-9.90%
Negative 5Y CAGR while PLUG stands at 341.62%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
36.51%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PLUG's 37.02%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-89.51%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while PLUG stands at 101.32%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-58.37%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while PLUG is at 119.39%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-87.67%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while PLUG stands at 121.97%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
49.18%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of PLUG's 95.46%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
-32.00%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while PLUG is 62.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1200.00%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
25549.17%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PLUG's 149.76%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
265.66%
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.
-77.83%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
49.04%
Inventory growth well above PLUG's 26.34%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
5.45%
Asset growth well under 50% of PLUG's 15.59%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-22.22%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.16%
Debt shrinking faster vs. PLUG's 35.33%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
55.65%
We increase R&D while PLUG cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
15.36%
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.