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.
-6.35%
Negative revenue growth while SEDG stands at 31.87%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
26.53%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SEDG's 83.23%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
72.87%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SEDG's 100.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
78.67%
Positive operating income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
62.22%
Positive net income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
62.30%
EPS growth under 50% of SEDG's 200.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
62.30%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SEDG's 200.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.12%
Slight or no buybacks while SEDG is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.34%
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.
18.17%
Positive OCF growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
72.30%
Positive FCF growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
68.63%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
54.18%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
46.43%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
127.60%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
259.76%
Positive OCF/share growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
606.49%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
77.75%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-402.72%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-448.13%
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.
-30.93%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-47.25%
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.
16.59%
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.
-3.44%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-5.33%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-5.21%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-12.86%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-25.47%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-31.19%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.