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.
-67.89%
Negative revenue growth while CSIQ stands at 1.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-214.64%
Negative gross profit growth while CSIQ is at 86.71%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
25.24%
EBIT growth below 50% of CSIQ's 372.18%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
51.95%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of CSIQ's 80.18%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
51.12%
Positive net income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
51.26%
EPS growth of 51.26% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
51.26%
Diluted EPS growth of 51.26% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
0.33%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 0.04%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.33%
Diluted share count expanding well above CSIQ's 0.04%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-126.11%
Negative OCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-145.35%
Negative FCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
22.72%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CSIQ's 1725.42%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-46.40%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 55.07%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-58.19%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 32.15%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-589.71%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
25.26%
OCF/share CAGR of 25.26% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-321.17%
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.
-5856.79%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-45.21%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is 53.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-281.88%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-30.93%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 274.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-46.59%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 46.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-36.42%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 62.79%. 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.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-20.67%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
6.59%
We show growth while CSIQ is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-5.27%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-13.05%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
21.24%
Debt growth far above CSIQ's 0.07%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-14.02%
Our R&D shrinks while CSIQ invests at 75.53%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.33%
We expand SG&A while CSIQ cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.