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.
10.64%
Positive revenue growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-69.23%
Negative gross profit growth while ENPH is at 36.51%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
578.63%
Positive EBIT growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
41.20%
Positive operating income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-149.44%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-150.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-150.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.43%
Share change of 0.43% while ENPH is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.94%
Reduced diluted shares while ENPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-459.13%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 27.31%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-402.94%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 10.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
331.84%
10Y CAGR of 331.84% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
331.84%
5Y CAGR of 331.84% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
73.83%
3Y CAGR of 73.83% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
-165.78%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-165.78%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-1141.78%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
81.92%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 81.92% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
81.92%
Net income/share CAGR of 81.92% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
8.58%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 8.58% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
77.44%
Equity/share CAGR of 77.44% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
-5.89%
Firm’s AR is declining while ENPH shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
5.78%
Inventory growth of 5.78% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
4.06%
Asset growth of 4.06% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
2.53%
BV/share growth of 2.53% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-12.08%
We’re deleveraging while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.68%
R&D dropping or stable vs. ENPH's 15.58%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
25.74%
SG&A growth well above ENPH's 36.44%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.