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.
48.13%
Revenue growth above 1.5x ENPH's 3.12%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
268.96%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x ENPH's 21.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
22.43%
EBIT growth 50-75% of ENPH's 36.18%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
7.68%
Operating income growth under 50% of ENPH's 36.18%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
42.14%
Net income growth comparable to ENPH's 43.32%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
41.79%
EPS growth similar to ENPH's 42.29%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
41.79%
Similar diluted EPS growth to ENPH's 42.29%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
0.05%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 0.51%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.05%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 0.51%. 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.
83.55%
Positive OCF growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
54.77%
Positive FCF growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
15.45%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-36.17%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-31.06%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-6.52%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 98.94%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
28.49%
Below 50% of ENPH's 94.82%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
22.80%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-458.30%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 98.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
4.71%
Below 50% of ENPH's 63.04%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-259.26%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-53.50%
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.
-46.51%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-52.35%
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.
3.82%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. ENPH's 22.10%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-8.26%
Inventory is declining while ENPH stands at 21.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.10%
Negative asset growth while ENPH invests at 8.19%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.89%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
18.11%
Debt growth far above ENPH's 0.58%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
4.75%
We increase R&D while ENPH cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.44%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.