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.
43.31%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of ENPH's 73.55%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
28.15%
Gross profit growth under 50% of ENPH's 56.32%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-38.47%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
573.02%
Positive operating income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
423.62%
Positive net income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
423.08%
Positive EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
423.08%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.29%
Share change of 0.29% while ENPH is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
10.55%
Diluted share change of 10.55% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
57.45%
Positive OCF growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
73.33%
FCF growth above 1.5x ENPH's 10.29%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
628.87%
5Y CAGR of 628.87% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
90.49%
3Y CAGR of 90.49% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-150.34%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-68.28%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
457.79%
Net income/share CAGR of 457.79% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
93.42%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 93.42% 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.
371.33%
Equity/share CAGR of 371.33% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
37.60%
Equity/share CAGR of 37.60% 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.
-17.97%
Firm’s AR is declining while ENPH shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
7.14%
Inventory growth of 7.14% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-15.11%
Negative asset growth while ENPH invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.77%
We have a declining book value while ENPH shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-41.06%
We’re deleveraging while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
19.42%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. ENPH's 25.50%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-2.90%
We cut SG&A while ENPH invests at 44.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.