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.
91.05%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SEDG's 31.87%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
78.70%
Gross profit growth similar to SEDG's 83.23%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
-24.88%
Negative EBIT growth while SEDG is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-125.93%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-89.04%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-87.50%
Negative EPS growth while SEDG is at 200.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-87.50%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SEDG is at 200.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
11.95%
Slight or no buybacks while SEDG is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
14.76%
Slight or no buyback while SEDG 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.
77.06%
Positive OCF growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
23.51%
Positive FCF growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-39.08%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-39.08%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-39.08%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
97.40%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
97.40%
Positive OCF/share growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
97.40%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
100.81%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
100.81%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
100.81%
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.
102.42%
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.
221.47%
We show growth while SEDG is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
86.59%
Positive asset growth while SEDG is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
16.25%
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.
14.51%
We increase R&D while SEDG cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
266.44%
We expand SG&A while SEDG cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.