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.
-8.91%
Negative revenue growth while ENPH stands at 6.92%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
41.64%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x ENPH's 8.36%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-127.98%
Negative EBIT growth while ENPH is at 7.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
67.92%
Operating income growth above 1.5x ENPH's 7.16%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-262.89%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-258.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-258.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.21%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 4.06%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-1.38%
Reduced diluted shares while ENPH is at 2.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4410.58%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 5.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-1144.84%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 7.27%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-54.29%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-14.73%
Negative 5Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 340.05%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-17.78%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 239.57%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
48.68%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 108.85%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
31.34%
Below 50% of ENPH's 328.19%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
40.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 362.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
71.54%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of ENPH's 106.18%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
80.40%
Below 50% of ENPH's 221.40%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
70.03%
Below 50% of ENPH's 1344.34%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-81.46%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-65.29%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 2318.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
202.35%
Below 50% of ENPH's 1705.95%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital 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.
9.03%
AR growth well above ENPH's 7.40%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
14.54%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ENPH's 29.62%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.03%
Asset growth well under 50% of ENPH's 8.85%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-7.97%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-3.03%
We’re deleveraging while ENPH stands at 24.12%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
14.78%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. ENPH's 13.07%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
0.50%
SG&A declining or stable vs. ENPH's 7.29%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.