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.
-0.21%
Negative revenue growth while CSIQ stands at 33.48%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-11.62%
Negative gross profit growth while CSIQ is at 31.37%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-170.82%
Negative EBIT growth while CSIQ is at 18.34%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-34.04%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-965.36%
Negative net income growth while CSIQ stands at 70.04%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-920.00%
Negative EPS growth while CSIQ is at 68.75%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-1125.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is at 70.97%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
1.56%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 0.20%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-13.07%
Reduced diluted shares while CSIQ is at 5.29%. 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.
50.99%
OCF growth of 50.99% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
33.16%
FCF growth of 33.16% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest improvements in free cash can accelerate further.
253.43%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CSIQ's 8949.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-51.51%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 72.79%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-48.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 99.74%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-227.20%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-152.69%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-185.48%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-603.56%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 1458.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-296.64%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is 14.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1.15%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ is 153.29%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
254.46%
Equity/share CAGR of 254.46% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-24.80%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 16.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
19.02%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 49.51%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
-31.50%
Firm’s AR is declining while CSIQ shows 31.89%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
12.62%
We show growth while CSIQ is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.05%
Asset growth well under 50% of CSIQ's 9.87%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-2.39%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
4.50%
Debt shrinking faster vs. CSIQ's 52.99%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
21.46%
We increase R&D while CSIQ cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.50%
We cut SG&A while CSIQ invests at 53.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.