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.
6.67%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SEDG's 11.45%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
-177.61%
Negative gross profit growth while SEDG is at 2.22%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-80.71%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
33.93%
Positive operating income growth while SEDG is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-76.09%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-75.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-75.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.08%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SEDG's 1.31%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.08%
Slight or no buyback while SEDG is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
83.73%
OCF growth above 1.5x SEDG's 36.52%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
56.28%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x SEDG's 49.27%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
-35.00%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-38.39%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
17.44%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SEDG's 80.64%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-132.84%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG stands at 167.91%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-168.88%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SEDG is at 167.91%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
91.47%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SEDG's 205.92%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-405.40%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SEDG is at 110.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-709.40%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SEDG is 110.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-19.28%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-111.66%
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.
-116.09%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SEDG is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-113.86%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SEDG is at 128.02%. 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.
-13.76%
Firm’s AR is declining while SEDG shows 33.61%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-19.52%
Inventory is declining while SEDG stands at 32.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-24.74%
Negative asset growth while SEDG invests at 13.18%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-393.59%
We have a declining book value while SEDG shows 4.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-54.80%
We’re deleveraging while SEDG stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.80%
Our R&D shrinks while SEDG invests at 22.88%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-29.30%
We cut SG&A while SEDG invests at 30.25%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.