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%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MAXN's 73.39%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
83.79%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x MAXN's 71.83%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
81.76%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x MAXN's 66.50%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
79.61%
Net income growth comparable to MAXN's 73.10%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
79.66%
EPS growth of 79.66% while MAXN is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
79.61%
Similar diluted EPS growth to MAXN's 73.09%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
0.49%
Share change of 0.49% while MAXN is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.43%
Diluted share change of 0.43% while MAXN is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while MAXN stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-587.06%
Negative OCF growth while MAXN is at 93.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-259.95%
Negative FCF growth while MAXN is at 91.23%. 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%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MAXN stands at 7.06%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-89.40%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-218.55%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-93.69%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-644.33%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-79.81%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-1039.85%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-70.19%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-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 MAXN 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 MAXN is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.23%
Positive asset growth while MAXN is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
139.76%
Positive BV/share change while MAXN is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.20%
We have some new debt while MAXN reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-4.70%
Our R&D shrinks while MAXN invests at 3.39%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-10.20%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.