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.
-17.13%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-56.88%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
64.12%
Positive EBIT growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
-44.93%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
26.00%
Positive net income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-294.44%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
86.35%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.04%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.06%
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.
-39.92%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-89.21%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-61.22%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 39.36%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-37.05%
Negative 5Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 156.89%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
1.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 6.60%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-159.44%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 44.46%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
13.70%
Below 50% of ENPH's 1381.48%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-281.16%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-185.83%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 329.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
85.92%
Below 50% of ENPH's 2211.93%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-106.52%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-81.01%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while ENPH stands at 655.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
218.02%
Below 50% of ENPH's 9811.79%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-26.48%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 89.62%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability 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.
-10.64%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-19.39%
Inventory is declining while ENPH stands at 22.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-6.93%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-27.56%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
4.38%
Debt growth far above ENPH's 0.15%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-11.23%
Our R&D shrinks while ENPH invests at 0.76%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
8.26%
We expand SG&A while ENPH cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.