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.
0.83%
Revenue growth under 50% of ENPH's 4.74%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
22.37%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x ENPH's 3.95%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
312.32%
Positive EBIT growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
1056.53%
Positive operating income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
255.43%
Net income growth above 1.5x ENPH's 24.14%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
248.28%
EPS growth above 1.5x ENPH's 20.83%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
239.29%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x ENPH's 27.27%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.84%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 2.89%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
13.53%
Slight or no buyback while ENPH is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
154.55%
Positive OCF growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
139.78%
Positive FCF growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-70.49%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-41.23%
Negative 5Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 37.74%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-43.85%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 188.06%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
111.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with ENPH's 106.99%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
105.87%
Below 50% of ENPH's 212.19%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
114.73%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 1013.23%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
128.77%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ENPH's 102.93%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
185.94%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to ENPH's 181.20%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
113.73%
Below 50% of ENPH's 828.22%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-83.20%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-72.76%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 1518.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
938.19%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of ENPH's 1442.36%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
-16.40%
Firm’s AR is declining while ENPH shows 19.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.23%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ENPH's 8.26%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-3.02%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
22.02%
Positive BV/share change while ENPH is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-16.43%
We’re deleveraging while ENPH stands at 1.17%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-6.06%
Our R&D shrinks while ENPH invests at 4.08%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
18.82%
SG&A growth well above ENPH's 14.97%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.