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.
-4.64%
Negative revenue growth while ENPH stands at 2.77%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
103.15%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x ENPH's 11.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
81.22%
EBIT growth above 1.5x ENPH's 32.97%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
82.82%
Operating income growth above 1.5x ENPH's 32.97%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
79.91%
Net income growth above 1.5x ENPH's 7.17%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
79.81%
EPS growth above 1.5x ENPH's 15.50%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
79.81%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x ENPH's 11.98%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.07%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 10.00%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.07%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 5.63%. 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.
-32.48%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 67.06%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-24.39%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 61.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-35.27%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-43.94%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
9.00%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-162.65%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 102.71%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-581.92%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 666.47%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-50.61%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 149.12%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-307.66%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 99.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-171.29%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is 77.62%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-54.33%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-103.20%
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.
-104.46%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-103.54%
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.
5.46%
Our AR growth while ENPH is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
3.93%
Inventory growth well above ENPH's 2.38%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.83%
Asset growth well under 50% of ENPH's 49.41%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-64.84%
We have a declining book value while ENPH shows 112.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
48.51%
Debt shrinking faster vs. ENPH's 115.50%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-49.89%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
17.32%
SG&A growth well above ENPH's 7.89%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.