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.
-7.05%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-91.56%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-117.68%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
52.17%
Positive operating income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-19.73%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
5.26%
Positive EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
-2636.84%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.11%
Slight or no buybacks while ENPH is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.11%
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.
-16.64%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
37.43%
Positive FCF growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-54.63%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 172.50%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-19.07%
Negative 5Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 433.37%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
52.14%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 185.92%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-148.30%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 9251.33%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
89.98%
Below 50% of ENPH's 1515.51%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
55.23%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of ENPH's 100.12%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
-123.86%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 654.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
66.53%
Below 50% of ENPH's 2579.22%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-181.28%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH is 168.12%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-72.89%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while ENPH stands at 671.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
707.78%
Below 50% of ENPH's 18332.34%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
4083.36%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 125.79%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-8.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while ENPH shows 7.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-23.48%
Inventory is declining while ENPH stands at 4.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-8.03%
Negative asset growth while ENPH invests at 2.54%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-11.43%
We have a declining book value while ENPH shows 4.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-9.91%
We’re deleveraging while ENPH stands at 0.19%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-16.93%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-79.07%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.