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.
33.96%
Revenue growth similar to SEDG's 31.87%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
-13.81%
Negative gross profit growth while SEDG is at 83.23%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
3.34%
EBIT growth below 50% of SEDG's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
3.34%
Positive operating income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
60.74%
Positive net income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
34.50%
EPS growth under 50% of SEDG's 200.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
34.50%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SEDG's 200.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-16.12%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-16.12%
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.
-100.51%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-188.03%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1468.44%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
1468.44%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
1468.44%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
84.42%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
84.42%
Positive OCF/share growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
84.42%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
80.68%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
80.68%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
80.68%
Positive short-term CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
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.
42.45%
Our AR growth while SEDG is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
26.21%
We show growth while SEDG is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
92.75%
Positive asset growth while SEDG is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
250.95%
Positive BV/share change while SEDG is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-59.76%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-183.30%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.