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.
-51.83%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-62.76%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-105.83%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-100.96%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-101.39%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-101.54%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-101.54%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.83%
Share count expansion well above FSLR's 0.51%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-8.75%
Reduced diluted shares while FSLR is at 0.65%. 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.
-171.46%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-195.44%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
47.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 8394.83%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
581.83%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 1203.19%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
35.03%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 166.94%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
64.39%
OCF/share CAGR of 64.39% while FSLR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
-1569.50%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-106.16%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
98.94%
Below 50% of FSLR's 1500.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-627.12%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while FSLR is 5492.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-114.47%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSLR is 130.49%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
296.72%
Equity/share CAGR of 296.72% while FSLR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
47.74%
Below 50% of FSLR's 187.01%. 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.
-27.42%
Firm’s AR is declining while FSLR shows 21.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
55.54%
Inventory growth well above FSLR's 35.31%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
2.52%
Asset growth above 1.5x FSLR's 1.22%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-2.64%
We have a declining book value while FSLR shows 2.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
1.76%
We have some new debt while FSLR reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.19%
Our R&D shrinks while FSLR invests at 13.59%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-41.70%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.