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.
2.81%
Positive revenue growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
153.84%
Positive gross profit growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
29.81%
Positive EBIT growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
33.02%
Positive operating income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
33.08%
Positive net income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
34.04%
Positive EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
33.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.01%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 2.14%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.40%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 1.55%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-24.60%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-3.56%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
308.66%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-40.06%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-47.51%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 25.28%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-2385.62%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 90.10%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-48.88%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 96.89%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-292.11%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-15021.96%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 83.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-2730.84%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is 96.29%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-35.33%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
132.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 132.63% while ENPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-41.36%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
25.43%
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.
1.74%
AR growth well above ENPH's 2.08%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
1.15%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ENPH's 11.71%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.46%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.33%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
3.89%
Debt shrinking faster vs. ENPH's 17.65%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
1.06%
R&D dropping or stable vs. ENPH's 4.16%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-7.43%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.