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.
4.54%
Revenue growth under 50% of ENPH's 14.17%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.76%
Negative gross profit growth while ENPH is at 15.97%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-91.91%
Negative EBIT growth while ENPH is at 15.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
76.66%
Operating income growth above 1.5x ENPH's 15.89%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-94.39%
Negative net income growth while ENPH stands at 33.92%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-94.87%
Negative EPS growth while ENPH is at 41.25%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-94.44%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ENPH is at 34.18%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.06%
Slight or no buybacks while ENPH is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-8.82%
Reduced diluted shares while ENPH is at 0.24%. 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.
-119.63%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 34.95%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-13.53%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 32.52%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-50.04%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 277.35%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-39.49%
Negative 5Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 472.36%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-27.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 210.72%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-105.61%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 896.94%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-119.42%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 8441.72%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-341.68%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 123.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
103.58%
Below 50% of ENPH's 695.33%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
101.07%
Below 50% of ENPH's 3391.01%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
22.42%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ENPH's 18.69%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
-60.55%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while ENPH stands at 336.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
222.10%
Below 50% of ENPH's 5792.83%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
4848.85%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ENPH's 173.13%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.03%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. ENPH's 19.92%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
38.80%
Inventory growth well above ENPH's 2.22%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
3.64%
Asset growth well under 50% of ENPH's 14.32%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.53%
Under 50% of ENPH's 43.04%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
1.70%
We have some new debt while ENPH reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-18.04%
Our R&D shrinks while ENPH invests at 12.44%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-5.70%
We cut SG&A while ENPH invests at 16.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.