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%
Negative revenue growth while SEDG stands at 10.84%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
144.12%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SEDG's 12.16%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
83.79%
Positive EBIT growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
81.76%
Operating income growth above 1.5x SEDG's 17.91%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
79.61%
Net income growth comparable to SEDG's 82.99%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
79.66%
EPS growth similar to SEDG's 80.00%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
79.61%
Similar diluted EPS growth to SEDG's 78.57%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
0.49%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SEDG's 1.66%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.43%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SEDG's 1.70%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while SEDG stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-587.06%
Negative OCF growth while SEDG is at 39.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-259.95%
Negative FCF growth while SEDG is at 40.05%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-19.36%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 363.01%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-47.70%
Negative 5Y CAGR while SEDG stands at 363.01%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-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 SEDG stands at 974.23%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-218.55%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is at 974.23%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-93.69%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 131.43%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-644.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SEDG is at 559.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-79.81%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SEDG is 559.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-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%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while SEDG stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-56.85%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SEDG is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-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 SEDG is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
0.51%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. SEDG's 18.52%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
4.23%
Asset growth well under 50% of SEDG's 14.07%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
139.76%
BV/share growth above 1.5x SEDG's 8.95%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.20%
Debt growth of 0.20% while SEDG is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-4.70%
Our R&D shrinks while SEDG invests at 8.86%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-10.20%
We cut SG&A while SEDG invests at 4.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.