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.
91.05%
Revenue growth above 1.5x FSLR's 27.05%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
78.70%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x FSLR's 17.28%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-24.88%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-125.93%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-89.04%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-87.50%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-87.50%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
11.95%
Share reduction more than 1.5x FSLR's 28.48%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
14.76%
Diluted share count expanding well above FSLR's 29.42%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
77.06%
OCF growth under 50% of FSLR's 192.11%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
23.51%
FCF growth under 50% of FSLR's 95.63%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-39.08%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while FSLR stands at 1082.34%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-39.08%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 1082.34%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-39.08%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 1082.34%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
97.40%
OCF/share CAGR of 97.40% while FSLR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
97.40%
OCF/share CAGR of 97.40% while FSLR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
97.40%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 97.40% while FSLR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
100.81%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSLR's 171.60%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
100.81%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSLR's 171.60%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
100.81%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of FSLR's 171.60%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term 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.
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.
102.42%
Our AR growth while FSLR is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
221.47%
We show growth while FSLR is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
86.59%
Asset growth above 1.5x FSLR's 6.96%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
16.25%
Positive BV/share change while FSLR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
14.51%
R&D dropping or stable vs. FSLR's 85.45%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
266.44%
SG&A growth well above FSLR's 48.50%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.