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.
-0.21%
Negative revenue growth while RUN stands at 13.63%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-11.62%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-170.82%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-34.04%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-965.36%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-920.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-1125.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
1.56%
Slight or no buybacks while RUN is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-13.07%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
50.99%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x RUN's 35.37%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
33.16%
Positive FCF growth while RUN is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
253.43%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x RUN's 73.09%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
-51.51%
Negative 5Y CAGR while RUN stands at 73.09%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-48.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while RUN stands at 73.09%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-227.20%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-152.69%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-185.48%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-603.56%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while RUN is at 78.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-296.64%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while RUN is 78.62%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1.15%
Negative 3Y CAGR while RUN is 78.62%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
254.46%
Equity/share CAGR of 254.46% while RUN is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-24.80%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RUN is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
19.02%
Equity/share CAGR of 19.02% while RUN is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
-31.50%
Firm’s AR is declining while RUN shows 26.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
12.62%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. RUN's 37.31%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.05%
Asset growth well under 50% of RUN's 15.28%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-2.39%
We have a declining book value while RUN shows 90.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
4.50%
Debt shrinking faster vs. RUN's 10.46%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
21.46%
We increase R&D while RUN cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.50%
We cut SG&A while RUN invests at 24.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.