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.
-12.29%
Negative revenue growth while SEDG stands at 31.87%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
2.22%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SEDG's 83.23%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
12.60%
EBIT growth below 50% of SEDG's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
9.04%
Positive operating income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
10.29%
Positive net income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
20.24%
EPS growth under 50% of SEDG's 200.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
20.24%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SEDG's 200.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
14.39%
Slight or no buybacks while SEDG is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
14.39%
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.
-202.05%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-292.59%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
39.48%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
128.96%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
73.16%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
75.96%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-822.78%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-92.68%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
67.76%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-4064.44%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-466.76%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
29.34%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-16.57%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
59.84%
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.
15.80%
We show growth while SEDG is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.87%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.65%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-28.87%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
39.51%
We increase R&D while SEDG cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.21%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.