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.
-40.45%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
144.12%
Positive gross profit growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
83.79%
Positive EBIT growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
81.76%
Positive operating income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
79.61%
Positive net income growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
79.66%
Positive EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
79.61%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ENPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.49%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 6.69%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.43%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 6.69%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-587.06%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 275.60%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-259.95%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 195.55%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-19.36%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-47.70%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-16.30%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-89.40%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 101.10%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-218.55%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 121.70%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-93.69%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 114.05%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-644.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 97.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-79.81%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is 77.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1039.85%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH is 60.99%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-70.19%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-56.85%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-69.96%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
3.38%
Our AR growth while ENPH is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
0.51%
We show growth while ENPH is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.23%
Asset growth well under 50% of ENPH's 25.40%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
139.76%
Positive BV/share change while ENPH is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.20%
Debt shrinking faster vs. ENPH's 1.96%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-4.70%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-10.20%
We cut SG&A while ENPH invests at 20.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.