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.
34.86%
Positive revenue growth while MAXN is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
28.91%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MAXN's 73.39%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
151.45%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MAXN's 71.83%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
151.45%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MAXN's 66.50%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
257.74%
Net income growth above 1.5x MAXN's 73.10%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
254.71%
EPS growth of 254.71% while MAXN is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
240.65%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MAXN's 73.09%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
3.42%
Share change of 3.42% while MAXN is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
9.97%
Diluted share change of 9.97% while MAXN is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-371.63%
Negative OCF growth while MAXN is at 93.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-70.65%
Negative FCF growth while MAXN is at 91.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
41.51%
Our AR growth while MAXN is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-0.82%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
38.41%
Positive asset growth while MAXN is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
25.38%
Positive BV/share change while MAXN is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
112.50%
We have some new debt while MAXN reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
38.32%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MAXN's 3.39%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
6.12%
We expand SG&A while MAXN cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.