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.
0.83%
Revenue growth under 50% of CSIQ's 31.24%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
22.37%
Positive gross profit growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
312.32%
Positive EBIT growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
1056.53%
Positive operating income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
255.43%
Positive net income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
248.28%
Positive EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
239.29%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.84%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 0.71%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
13.53%
Slight or no buyback while CSIQ 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.
154.55%
OCF growth of 154.55% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
139.78%
FCF growth of 139.78% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest improvements in free cash can accelerate further.
-70.49%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 112.05%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-41.23%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 69.50%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-43.85%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 114.42%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
111.77%
OCF/share CAGR of 111.77% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
105.87%
OCF/share CAGR of 105.87% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
114.73%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 114.73% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
128.77%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x CSIQ's 13.63% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
185.94%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
113.73%
Positive short-term CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-83.20%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 110.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-72.76%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 72.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
938.19%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x CSIQ's 51.22%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-16.40%
Firm’s AR is declining while CSIQ shows 39.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.23%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. CSIQ's 21.02%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-3.02%
Negative asset growth while CSIQ invests at 2.71%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
22.02%
BV/share growth above 1.5x CSIQ's 4.04%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-16.43%
We’re deleveraging while CSIQ stands at 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-6.06%
Our R&D shrinks while CSIQ invests at 5.69%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
18.82%
SG&A growth well above CSIQ's 0.41%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.