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.
23.24%
Revenue growth similar to ENPH's 25.51%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
-253.92%
Negative gross profit growth while ENPH is at 33.25%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-554.55%
Negative EBIT growth while ENPH is at 1576.36%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-215.67%
Negative operating income growth while ENPH is at 1576.36%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-390.49%
Negative net income growth while ENPH stands at 322.43%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-296.15%
Negative EPS growth while ENPH is at 325.53%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-296.15%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ENPH is at 314.57%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-38.35%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-38.35%
Reduced diluted shares while ENPH is at 2.78%. 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.
-697.99%
Negative OCF growth while ENPH is at 33.90%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-612.15%
Negative FCF growth while ENPH is at 37.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-98.55%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 22.47%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-97.80%
Negative 5Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 90.89%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-96.08%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH stands at 7.86%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-15.34%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 383.77%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-12.63%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH is at 2994.84%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-107.79%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ENPH stands at 49.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-523.77%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is at 1693.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-882.15%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ENPH is 32.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-111.99%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ENPH is 108.89%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-117.92%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while ENPH stands at 599.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-61.98%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 451.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-189.42%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while ENPH is at 43.13%. 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.
-34.77%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-70.14%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
223.24%
Asset growth above 1.5x ENPH's 3.08%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-151.68%
We have a declining book value while ENPH shows 5.54%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
191.33%
We have some new debt while ENPH reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
211.71%
We expand SG&A while ENPH cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.