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.
-9.27%
Negative revenue growth while ENPH stands at 27.62%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
81.85%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x ENPH's 33.46%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
203.22%
EBIT growth above 1.5x ENPH's 43.46%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
233.05%
Operating income growth above 1.5x ENPH's 43.46%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
135.77%
Net income growth above 1.5x ENPH's 38.54%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
134.78%
EPS growth above 1.5x ENPH's 40.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
132.61%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x ENPH's 40.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
1.71%
Share count expansion well above ENPH's 1.14%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
12.03%
Diluted share count expanding well above ENPH's 1.14%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-139.66%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 85.80%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-186.10%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 67.93%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
411.97%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-1.10%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
18.56%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-150.68%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 99.02%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-244.90%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 99.02%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
22.96%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 99.02%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
144.97%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 95.24% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-58.77%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is 95.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
348.70%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 95.24%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-34.99%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-48.30%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 0.00%. 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.
36.40%
AR growth well above ENPH's 28.89%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-16.42%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
16.15%
Asset growth above 1.5x ENPH's 0.25%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.18%
Positive BV/share change while ENPH is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
32.39%
We have some new debt while ENPH reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-1.03%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-11.49%
We cut SG&A while ENPH invests at 3.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.