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.
18.82%
Positive revenue growth while RUN is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-14.41%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
154.68%
Positive EBIT growth while RUN is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
-285.20%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
123.94%
Positive net income growth while RUN is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
124.49%
Positive EPS growth while RUN is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
124.49%
Positive diluted EPS growth while RUN is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.08%
Slight or no buybacks while RUN is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.69%
Slight or no buyback while RUN 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.
89.83%
Positive OCF growth while RUN is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
53.97%
Positive FCF growth while RUN is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-61.45%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while RUN stands at 180.97%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-69.98%
Negative 5Y CAGR while RUN stands at 82.97%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-31.34%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-101.02%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-100.40%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
92.53%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RUN is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
113.73%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x RUN's 43.96% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
105.87%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RUN is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
110.42%
Positive short-term CAGR while RUN is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-82.79%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while RUN stands at 647.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-69.16%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RUN is at 371.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
251.81%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to RUN's 262.55%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
-29.28%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-11.18%
Inventory is declining while RUN stands at 14.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
8.82%
Asset growth above 1.5x RUN's 2.45%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
6.19%
BV/share growth above 1.5x RUN's 1.40%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.24%
Debt shrinking faster vs. RUN's 5.21%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
46.53%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. RUN's 16.76%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
49.72%
SG&A growth well above RUN's 7.80%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.