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.
35.46%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SEDG's 13.68%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
-171.55%
Negative gross profit growth while SEDG is at 22.25%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-922.43%
Negative EBIT growth while SEDG is at 55.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-930.10%
Negative operating income growth while SEDG is at 36.13%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-948.31%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-946.15%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-943.59%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.00%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SEDG's 2.13%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.07%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SEDG's 1.61%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
279.96%
OCF growth above 1.5x SEDG's 36.48%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
19.65%
FCF growth 50-75% of SEDG's 34.53%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
58.55%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-17.44%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-46.77%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SEDG stands at 126.91%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
23.68%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SEDG's 170.70%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-71.13%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is at 170.70%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-63.14%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 315.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-6403.77%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SEDG is at 116.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-234.35%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SEDG is 116.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-497.53%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SEDG is 407.53%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-91.06%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while SEDG stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-87.75%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SEDG is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-91.23%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SEDG is at 2758.74%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
-2.19%
Firm’s AR is declining while SEDG shows 56.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-13.57%
Inventory is declining while SEDG stands at 33.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-15.77%
Negative asset growth while SEDG invests at 16.77%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-74.09%
We have a declining book value while SEDG shows 5.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-24.22%
We’re deleveraging while SEDG stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-4.20%
Our R&D shrinks while SEDG invests at 14.32%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
6.03%
SG&A growth well above SEDG's 9.20%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.