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.
-8.91%
Negative revenue growth while RUN stands at 13.91%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
41.64%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x RUN's 10.28%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-127.98%
Negative EBIT growth while RUN is at 67.55%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
67.92%
Operating income growth similar to RUN's 67.55%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
-262.89%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-258.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-258.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.21%
Share reduction more than 1.5x RUN's 2.20%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-1.38%
Reduced diluted shares while RUN is at 0.61%. 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.
-4410.58%
Negative OCF growth while RUN is at 8.87%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-1144.84%
Negative FCF growth while RUN is at 11.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-54.29%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while RUN stands at 519.44%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-14.73%
Negative 5Y CAGR while RUN stands at 137.41%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-17.78%
Negative 3Y CAGR while RUN stands at 39.14%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
48.68%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while RUN is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
31.34%
Positive OCF/share growth while RUN is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
40.35%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RUN is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
71.54%
Positive 10Y CAGR while RUN is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
80.40%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RUN is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
70.03%
Positive short-term CAGR while RUN is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-81.46%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while RUN stands at 615.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-65.29%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RUN is at 350.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
202.35%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of RUN's 269.87%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while RUN stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital 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.
9.03%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. RUN's 37.33%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
14.54%
Inventory growth well above RUN's 9.69%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.03%
Asset growth well under 50% of RUN's 4.68%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-7.97%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-3.03%
We’re deleveraging while RUN stands at 9.65%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
14.78%
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 expand SG&A while RUN cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.