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.
73.47%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SEDG's 2.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
212.90%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SEDG's 7.06%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
37.68%
Positive EBIT growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
86.36%
Operating income growth above 1.5x SEDG's 1.99%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
42.07%
Positive net income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
43.14%
Positive EPS growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
43.14%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.09%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SEDG's 0.78%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.09%
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.
57.23%
OCF growth above 1.5x SEDG's 35.12%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
45.43%
FCF growth similar to SEDG's 47.98%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
456.78%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-26.49%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-2.58%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-1063.10%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 143.72%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-523.38%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is at 143.72%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-490.23%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 143.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-311.40%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SEDG is at 119.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
92.23%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of SEDG's 119.92%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
-132.84%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SEDG is 119.92%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
33.48%
Below 50% of SEDG's 315.28%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-22.74%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SEDG is at 315.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
3.74%
Below 50% of SEDG's 315.28%. 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.
10.80%
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.
-4.45%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-2.01%
Negative asset growth while SEDG invests at 3.90%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.03%
We have a declining book value while SEDG shows 6.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
2.98%
Debt growth of 2.98% while SEDG is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-10.37%
Our R&D shrinks while SEDG invests at 7.61%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-5.45%
We cut SG&A while SEDG invests at 14.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.