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.
-97.19%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-15.10%
Negative gross profit growth while SEDG is at 62.95%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
65.81%
EBIT growth above 1.5x SEDG's 10.33%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
53.01%
Operating income growth above 1.5x SEDG's 31.40%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
65.32%
Net income growth above 1.5x SEDG's 3.12%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
71.83%
EPS growth above 1.5x SEDG's 3.51%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
71.83%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x SEDG's 3.51%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-71.98%
Share reduction while SEDG is at 0.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-72.01%
Reduced diluted shares while SEDG is at 0.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
82.45%
Positive OCF growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
85.98%
Positive FCF growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-96.39%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 247.69%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-91.67%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-88.57%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-124.40%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
90.42%
Positive OCF/share growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
57.28%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-136.70%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
69.14%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
30.87%
Positive short-term CAGR while SEDG is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-118.50%
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.
14.22%
Below 50% of SEDG's 197.63%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-182.52%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SEDG is at 84.40%. 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.
-90.27%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-98.94%
Inventory is declining while SEDG stands at 7.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-96.97%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-199.02%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-81.21%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-100.00%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-47.57%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.