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.
-1.37%
Negative revenue growth while SEDG stands at 31.87%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
13.53%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SEDG's 83.23%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
15.18%
EBIT growth below 50% of SEDG's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
18.86%
Positive operating income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-20.79%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-23.08%
Negative EPS growth while SEDG is at 200.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-21.62%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SEDG is at 200.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
1.33%
Slight or no buybacks while SEDG is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.54%
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.
391.18%
Positive OCF growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
743.93%
Positive FCF growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
495.16%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
205.81%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
622.87%
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.
291.84%
Positive short-term equity growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-26.74%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-4.88%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
5.42%
Positive asset growth while SEDG is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.64%
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.
25.68%
We increase R&D while SEDG cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
6.64%
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.