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.
-97.19%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-15.10%
Negative gross profit growth while CSIQ is at 18.44%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
65.81%
EBIT growth below 50% of CSIQ's 338.42%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
53.01%
Operating income growth under 50% of CSIQ's 275.25%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
65.32%
Net income growth under 50% of CSIQ's 991.20%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
71.83%
EPS growth under 50% of CSIQ's 1004.76%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
71.83%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of CSIQ's 1004.76%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-71.98%
Share reduction while CSIQ is at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-72.01%
Reduced diluted shares while CSIQ is at 0.92%. 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.
82.45%
Positive OCF growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
85.98%
Positive FCF growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-96.39%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 126.75%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-91.67%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 145.30%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-88.57%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 10.39%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-124.40%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
90.42%
OCF/share CAGR of 90.42% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
57.28%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 57.28% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
-136.70%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 159.77%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
69.14%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 164.37%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
30.87%
Positive short-term CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-118.50%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 306.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
14.22%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 84.06%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-182.52%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 45.79%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-90.27%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-98.94%
Inventory is declining while CSIQ stands at 18.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-96.97%
Negative asset growth while CSIQ invests at 3.96%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-199.02%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-81.21%
We’re deleveraging while CSIQ stands at 15.65%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while CSIQ invests at 8.81%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-47.57%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.