PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
1.52 - 1.58
1.19 - 3.37
354.5K / 984.1K (Avg.)
-1.64 | -0.94
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.
17.21%
Revenue growth above 1.5x ENPH's 1.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
-72.55%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-60.26%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-42.37%
Negative operating income growth while ENPH is at 26.34%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-95.09%
Negative net income growth while ENPH stands at 24.63%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-114.57%
Negative EPS growth while ENPH is at 21.74%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-115.69%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ENPH is at 22.73%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.25%
Slight or no buybacks while ENPH is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.08%
Slight or no buyback while ENPH is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
17.58%
Positive OCF growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
130.50%
Positive FCF growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
7074.36%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 20.31%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
7074.36%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 174.77%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
409.05%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
4274.13%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 176.50%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
4274.13%
Positive OCF/share growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
251.21%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
107.09%
Below 50% of ENPH's 2178.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
107.09%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of ENPH's 174.41%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
-94.13%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
95.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of ENPH's 112.35%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
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.
-11.89%
Firm’s AR is declining while ENPH shows 17.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-15.43%
Inventory is declining while ENPH stands at 20.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.05%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x ENPH's 2.34%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
1.36%
Under 50% of ENPH's 9.32%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
9.12%
Debt growth far above ENPH's 2.21%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
3.94%
We increase R&D while ENPH cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
35.79%
We expand SG&A while ENPH cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.