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.
-0.21%
Negative revenue growth while ENPH stands at 0.76%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-11.62%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-170.82%
Negative EBIT growth while ENPH is at 582.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-34.04%
Negative operating income growth while ENPH is at 582.11%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-965.36%
Negative net income growth while ENPH stands at 203.48%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-920.00%
Negative EPS growth while ENPH is at 173.53%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-1125.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ENPH is at 173.53%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
1.56%
Share count expansion well above ENPH's 0.94%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-13.07%
Reduced diluted shares while ENPH is at 8.30%. 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.
50.99%
Similar OCF growth to ENPH's 48.71%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
33.16%
FCF growth similar to ENPH's 34.41%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
253.43%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-51.51%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-48.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 54.12%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-227.20%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 94.47%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-152.69%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 94.47%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-185.48%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 73.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-603.56%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 100.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-296.64%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is 100.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1.15%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH is 106.38%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
254.46%
Equity/share CAGR of 254.46% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-24.80%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
19.02%
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.
-31.50%
Firm’s AR is declining while ENPH shows 11.89%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
12.62%
Inventory growth well above ENPH's 7.82%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.05%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x ENPH's 0.92%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
-2.39%
We have a declining book value while ENPH shows 7.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
4.50%
Debt growth of 4.50% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
21.46%
We increase R&D while ENPH cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.50%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.