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.
-2.89%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-32.38%
Negative gross profit growth while MAXN is at 73.39%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-64.37%
Negative EBIT growth while MAXN is at 71.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-67.05%
Negative operating income growth while MAXN is at 66.50%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-79.39%
Negative net income growth while MAXN stands at 73.10%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-79.78%
Negative EPS growth while MAXN is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-79.45%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MAXN is at 73.09%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.12%
Share change of 0.12% while MAXN is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-1.65%
Reduced diluted shares while MAXN is at 0.00%. 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.
13.88%
OCF growth under 50% of MAXN's 93.92%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-323.16%
Negative FCF growth while MAXN is at 91.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
6445.22%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MAXN is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
5.50%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MAXN is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-46.37%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MAXN stands at 7.06%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
1256.12%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MAXN is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-52.33%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-89.41%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
229.38%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MAXN is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-49.88%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-88.45%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-27.56%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-46.96%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
-12.14%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-14.75%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.71%
Positive asset growth while MAXN is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.92%
Positive BV/share change while MAXN is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.30%
We have some new debt while MAXN reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
13.88%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MAXN's 3.39%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
20.40%
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.