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.
-0.34%
Negative revenue growth while ENPH stands at 36.44%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
105.72%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x ENPH's 92.21%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
57.70%
EBIT growth similar to ENPH's 58.15%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
46.08%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of ENPH's 58.15%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
30.28%
Net income growth at 50-75% of ENPH's 48.11%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
30.93%
EPS growth at 50-75% of ENPH's 53.33%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
30.93%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of ENPH's 53.33%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
0.39%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 10.15%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.39%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 10.15%. 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.
-27.51%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 100.76%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-15.58%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 100.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1.68%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-53.23%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-39.91%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-1801.75%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 100.09%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-208.25%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 100.49%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-14.01%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 163.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-845.00%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 95.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
5.36%
Below 50% of ENPH's 50.36%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-718.62%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-38.05%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-45.43%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-48.50%
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.
5.87%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. ENPH's 15.34%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
3.93%
We show growth while ENPH is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.70%
Positive asset growth while ENPH is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-5.90%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-9.60%
We’re deleveraging while ENPH stands at 0.97%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-3.71%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
1.93%
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.