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.
-13.58%
Negative revenue growth while ENPH stands at 17.82%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-21.95%
Negative gross profit growth while ENPH is at 17.85%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-32.27%
Negative EBIT growth while ENPH is at 93.35%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-195.63%
Negative operating income growth while ENPH is at 93.35%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
167.94%
Net income growth above 1.5x ENPH's 90.46%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
168.87%
EPS growth above 1.5x ENPH's 90.29%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
155.10%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x ENPH's 90.29%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
1.77%
Share count expansion well above ENPH's 0.84%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
18.91%
Diluted share count expanding well above ENPH's 0.84%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-86.96%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-82.83%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 4.55%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
204.54%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-29.48%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-43.62%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 63.21%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-246.13%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 89.03%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-122.15%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 89.03%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-319.20%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 41.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
113.47%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ENPH's 99.58%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
174.47%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 99.58%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
106.82%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ENPH's 95.28%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-25.53%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
16.39%
Positive short-term equity growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-21.43%
Firm’s AR is declining while ENPH shows 46.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.59%
We show growth while ENPH is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.98%
Asset growth well under 50% of ENPH's 18.12%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.39%
Under 50% of ENPH's 9.92%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-4.55%
We’re deleveraging while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-2.87%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
5.58%
SG&A growth well above ENPH's 2.32%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.