Compare Suzlon with Indian wind-energy peers using the same reporting period, consolidated filings and market date—not headline order books or stale valuation snapshots. The key questions are whether orders turn into deliveries and cash, how much of earnings is recurring, and whether the company’s business mix and balance sheet justify its valuation. Suzlon’s FY25 results provide a useful dated baseline, but they are not a current buy-or-sell signal.
Start with what the companies actually do
“Wind stock” can describe different businesses. A turbine manufacturer’s orders and deliveries are not directly comparable with a wind-farm owner’s generating capacity. Before comparing Suzlon Energy with Inox Wind or another listed company, identify the revenue engines represented in each set of results.
- Turbine manufacturing: turbine sales and related equipment; compare product mix, manufacturing capacity and deliveries.
- Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC): project execution; examine contract scope, project timing and execution risk.
- Operations and maintenance (O&M): service revenue from installed turbines; consider the size and duration of the service base.
- Power generation or project ownership: revenue from producing or owning electricity-generating assets. Keep this separate from an OEM’s order book and turbine deliveries.
Use consolidated filings and matching fiscal periods. Label every capacity figure as production, dispatch, delivery, commissioning or installed base; those measures describe different stages of the business.
Put sector growth in context, not in the earnings forecast
India added 6,057 MW of wind capacity in FY2025-26, taking installed capacity to 57,443 MW as of June 30, 2026, according to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), July 22, 2026. The ministry reported wind generation of 106 billion units in FY2025-26; its state table gives 106,699 million units. These are sector figures, not forecasts for any individual company.
#1 Best Overall
Annual additions have risen in the ministry’s reported series: 3,253 MW in FY2023-24, 4,151 MW in FY2024-25 and 6,057 MW in FY2025-26. The same release describes policy and infrastructure measures including transmission build-out, renewable purchase and consumption obligations, competitive-bidding guidelines, offshore-wind viability-gap funding, repowering policy and green open access. These measures can shape project pipelines and execution, but they do not guarantee orders, timely commissioning, company profits or stock returns.
Use Suzlon’s FY25 results as a dated baseline
Suzlon’s May 29, 2025 exchange-hosted results release reported the following consolidated FY25 figures. The period is FY2024-25, not a live comparison with peers’ later results.
| Measure | FY25 | FY24 comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | ₹10,851 crore | ₹6,497 crore |
| EBITDA | ₹1,857 crore | ₹1,029 crore |
| Profit before exceptional items and tax | ₹1,447 crore | ₹713 crore |
| Deliveries | 1,550 MW | 710 MW |
The release also reported FY25 profit after tax (PAT) of ₹2,072 crore, a 5.6 GW firm order book and ₹1,943 crore in net cash. Suzlon said PAT included recognition of a ₹638 crore deferred tax asset. That accounting item is not evidence of recurring operating earnings, so compare operating performance using EBITDA, profit before exceptional items and tax, margins and cash flow alongside PAT. The release’s full figures and qualification are available in Suzlon’s exchange-hosted FY25 results.
The FY25 annual report says Suzlon began the year with a 3 GW order book and ended with 5.6 GW. The company reported that 26% of orders came from the PSU segment and 55% of its order book was from C&I customers. It also reported an Indian installed base of 15.1 GW, claimed 30% cumulative market share, and said its 3 MW series represented 91% of its order book. These are company-reported figures for FY25, not independent measures of current market share. See the Suzlon FY2024-25 annual report hosted by NSE.
Compare execution and backlog conversion
An order book is potential future work, not revenue already earned. A large backlog matters when the company can deliver it on schedule and at acceptable margins, then collect payment. Compare the same reporting date and distinguish firm orders from other pipeline or prospective work.
- Deliveries and commissioning: compare MW delivered and commissioned by fiscal year, and check the company’s definition of each measure.
- Conversion pace: assess how opening backlog changes through new orders, cancellations and completed deliveries.
- Order quality: look at customer concentration, order terms, product mix and expected conversion schedule where disclosed.
- Capacity and bottlenecks: weigh manufacturing capacity and project execution against delivery commitments; investigate delays and component supply constraints.
- Cash realization: track receivables, working capital and operating cash flow to see whether reported activity is translating into cash.
Do not treat the 5.6 GW Suzlon FY25 order book as directly comparable with another company’s figure unless the date, scope and definition match. A backlog can grow while delivery is delayed, and delivery growth alone does not establish that margins or cash conversion are sound.
Compare the balance sheet and quality of earnings
Use consolidated numbers from the same reporting date. Net cash is useful, but it does not by itself answer whether working capital is manageable or whether the company faces contingent liabilities, major capex commitments or refinancing needs.
- Balance sheet: compare gross debt, cash, net debt, working capital, capex commitments and refinancing exposure.
- Profitability: compare revenue, EBITDA and EBITDA margin, profit before tax, PAT and operating cash flow.
- Non-recurring effects: identify exceptional items, deferred-tax movements and other accounting effects before comparing PAT or return ratios.
- Returns and capital use: examine ROE, ROCE and return on invested capital alongside dilution and reinvestment requirements. A high ratio can reflect a small equity base or a one-off accounting effect, not just durable operating performance.
For Suzlon, the ₹638 crore deferred tax asset recognition disclosed alongside FY25 PAT is a specific reason not to use headline PAT alone when assessing recurring earnings. Apply the same scrutiny to peer filings rather than assuming their reported profits are automatically comparable.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Compare market position without mixing definitions
Installed fleet, annual installations, OEM share, turbine range and service base each describe a different competitive position. A company’s cumulative installed-base share is not its share of new installations, and a service base is not the same as an order book.
Suzlon’s FY25 annual report claimed 30% cumulative market share. Separately, a June 23, 2026 Deven Choksey Research report estimated Suzlon’s share of India’s cumulative installed fleet at 38–40%, Inox Wind’s at 10–12%, and European OEMs’ at 25–28%; it estimated Suzlon and Inox together accounted for 49% of annual installations in FY26. These are analyst estimates, with sources described in the report as a mix of company and industry references. The figures have different dates and may use different denominators or methods, so they should not be combined with Suzlon’s FY25 claim into one precise market-share figure.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Compare Suzlon and Inox Wind using matching filings
Inox Wind is a relevant listed peer, but a meaningful comparison requires both companies’ statements for the same period and on the same basis. A July 2025 Economic Times comparison used FY25 data and reported Suzlon’s 5.6 GW backlog and ₹1,943 crore net cash versus Inox Wind’s 3.2 GW backlog. It also discussed delivery, return and valuation measures. Those figures are a dated secondary comparison, not a current like-for-like audited comparison; its 2025 share-performance and technical-analysis snapshots are stale.
Use the comparison as a prompt for what to investigate, not as a verdict about which share is better. Rebuild the analysis from each company’s filings for an identical period, checking whether backlog, debt, EBITDA, PAT, returns and valuation use comparable definitions. The available FY25 press comparison and FY26 analyst estimates do not substitute for matching-period audited statements.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Best Value
Value both stocks on the same date and earnings basis
For P/E, use a common market date and normalized earnings; for EV/EBITDA, use consistent enterprise-value and EBITDA definitions. Price-to-book and market capitalization can add context, but none makes an old multiple current. Explain tax gains or other one-offs before comparing P/E or return ratios. The Economic Times article’s 2025 valuation figures are historical only and should not be set beside a current share price as if they were contemporaneous.
A valuation comparison is only as reliable as its inputs. Align fiscal periods, use consolidated figures, account for dilution where relevant and make clear whether earnings are reported or normalized. If one company’s available data are analyst estimates and the other’s are audited results, label that distinction rather than presenting the resulting multiples as a clean peer ranking.
Account for risks beyond the sector growth headline
Faster national capacity additions do not remove company-level risks. For a wind-equipment maker, assess whether tender and project pipelines translate into executable work, whether transmission and state-level implementation support project timing, and whether components, customer payments and project economics permit profitable delivery. Policy support can improve the operating context without ensuring company outcomes.
Quick Recap
- Order cancellations, concentration or weaker-than-expected margins can reduce backlog value.
- Manufacturing constraints, component shortages or commissioning delays can slow conversion.
- Customer payment delays can weaken cash flow even when revenue grows.
- Changes in tender design, transmission availability or project economics can affect the pace of new work.
- Valuation can fall even when a business grows if expectations were already high or earnings quality disappoints.
A practical checklist for comparing wind stocks
- Choose the same reporting period: use matching consolidated annual or quarterly statements and record their reporting dates.
- Map business mix: separate turbine OEM, EPC, O&M and generation or project ownership revenue.
- Check delivery against backlog: compare firm orders, cancellations, deliveries, commissioning and cash collection.
- Reconcile earnings: review revenue, EBITDA, margins, PAT, operating cash flow and exceptional or deferred-tax items.
- Assess capital and balance sheet: compare debt, cash, working capital, capex needs, dilution and returns on capital.
- Define market position: state whether a share figure refers to installed fleet, annual installations, deliveries or service base, and attribute company claims or analyst estimates.
- Use a common valuation date: compare normalized earnings and consistent valuation measures, not old multiples with current prices.
- Stress-test execution: ask what happens to earnings and cash if deliveries slip, a customer pays late or project commissioning slows.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
