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.
9.24%
Positive revenue growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-19.88%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
5.51%
Positive EBIT growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
5.24%
Positive operating income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
18.05%
Positive net income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
17.74%
Positive EPS growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
17.74%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.64%
Share count expansion well above SEDG's 1.03%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.64%
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.
18.87%
Similar OCF growth to SEDG's 17.55%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
15.59%
FCF growth under 50% of SEDG's 47.25%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
256.51%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-49.79%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-36.12%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-3127.52%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 125.03%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-100.46%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is at 125.03%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-297.16%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 125.03%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-702.91%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SEDG is at 139.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
66.53%
Below 50% of SEDG's 139.07%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-413.33%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SEDG is 139.07%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
30.14%
Below 50% of SEDG's 192.31%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-38.31%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SEDG is at 192.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
18.92%
Below 50% of SEDG's 192.31%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
-1.03%
Firm’s AR is declining while SEDG shows 56.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
20.97%
We show growth while SEDG is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
7.58%
Asset growth at 75-90% of SEDG's 8.48%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
-3.73%
We have a declining book value while SEDG shows 7.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
21.02%
Debt growth of 21.02% while SEDG is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-3.96%
Our R&D shrinks while SEDG invests at 6.01%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-13.40%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.