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.
-2.89%
Negative revenue growth while ENPH stands at 8.07%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-32.38%
Negative gross profit growth while ENPH is at 23.29%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-64.37%
Negative EBIT growth while ENPH is at 69.86%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-67.05%
Negative operating income growth while ENPH is at 69.86%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-79.39%
Negative net income growth while ENPH stands at 55.40%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-79.78%
Negative EPS growth while ENPH is at 55.40%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-79.45%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ENPH is at 55.40%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.12%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 0.61%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-1.65%
Reduced diluted shares while ENPH is at 0.61%. 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.
13.88%
OCF growth under 50% of ENPH's 1649.90%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-323.16%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 425.37%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
6445.22%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
5.50%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-46.37%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
1256.12%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 103.68%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-52.33%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 103.68%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-89.41%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 103.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
229.38%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 98.92% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-49.88%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is 98.92%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-88.45%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH is 98.92%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-27.56%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-46.96%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
-12.14%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-14.75%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.71%
Positive asset growth while ENPH is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.92%
Positive BV/share change while ENPH is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.30%
We have some new debt while ENPH reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
13.88%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. ENPH's 5.16%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
20.40%
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.