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.
-23.77%
Negative revenue growth while ENPH stands at 8.52%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-392.47%
Negative gross profit growth while ENPH is at 18.37%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
44.06%
EBIT growth similar to ENPH's 42.59%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
-116.79%
Negative operating income growth while ENPH is at 42.59%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
43.28%
Net income growth under 50% of ENPH's 289.99%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
43.75%
EPS growth under 50% of ENPH's 200.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
43.75%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of ENPH's 100.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.41%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 1.46%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.41%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ENPH's 1.73%. 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.
-466.37%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 810.03%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-118.25%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 15089.81%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-3.74%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-56.64%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-12.41%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-65.78%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 104.73%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-354.59%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 55.48%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
60.99%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ENPH's 147.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-438.19%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 101.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-218.94%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is 117.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1.70%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH is 106.28%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-115.11%
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.
-121.56%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-120.43%
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.
-10.00%
Firm’s AR is declining while ENPH shows 3.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
8.52%
We show growth while ENPH is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.91%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-47.14%
We have a declining book value while ENPH shows 79.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
7.93%
We have some new debt while ENPH reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.72%
Our R&D shrinks while ENPH invests at 16.13%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
16.75%
SG&A growth well above ENPH's 21.23%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.