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.
-36.46%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
223.64%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x FSLR's 5.95%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-156.30%
Negative EBIT growth while FSLR is at 32.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-114.78%
Negative operating income growth while FSLR is at 32.07%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
1213.79%
Net income growth above 1.5x FSLR's 21.70%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
737.25%
EPS growth above 1.5x FSLR's 20.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
737.25%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x FSLR's 19.76%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.26%
Share reduction more than 1.5x FSLR's 1.20%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.07%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x FSLR's 1.23%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-79.62%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-133.00%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
15.16%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 8487.26%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
15.16%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 2733.78%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
89.04%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 626.29%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
103.91%
OCF/share CAGR of 103.91% while FSLR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
103.91%
OCF/share CAGR of 103.91% while FSLR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
249.97%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
106.39%
Below 50% of FSLR's 2201.14%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
106.39%
Below 50% of FSLR's 39753.45%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
685.68%
Below 50% of FSLR's 2834.55%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
73.31%
Below 50% of FSLR's 537.66%. 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.
25.27%
AR growth well above FSLR's 30.08%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
24.66%
Inventory growth well above FSLR's 12.63%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
22.14%
Asset growth above 1.5x FSLR's 3.70%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.16%
50-75% of FSLR's 6.04%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
43.80%
We have some new debt while FSLR reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
21.36%
We increase R&D while FSLR cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
4.35%
We expand SG&A while FSLR cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.