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.
-12.29%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
2.22%
Positive gross profit growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
12.60%
Positive EBIT growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
9.04%
Positive operating income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
10.29%
Positive net income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
20.24%
Positive EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
20.24%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
14.39%
Slight or no buybacks while ENPH is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
14.39%
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.
-202.05%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-292.59%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
39.48%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 223.91%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
128.96%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of ENPH's 223.91%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
73.16%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 223.91%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
75.96%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-822.78%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-92.68%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
67.76%
Positive 10Y CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-4064.44%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-466.76%
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.
29.34%
Equity/share CAGR of 29.34% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
-16.57%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
59.84%
Our AR growth while ENPH is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
15.80%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ENPH's 128.54%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.87%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.65%
We have a declining book value while ENPH shows 216.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-28.87%
We’re deleveraging while ENPH stands at 130.80%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
39.51%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. ENPH's 9.22%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-0.21%
We cut SG&A while ENPH invests at 10.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.