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.
-4.64%
Negative revenue growth while FSLR stands at 118.62%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
103.15%
Gross profit growth under 50% of FSLR's 1702.47%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
81.22%
EBIT growth 50-75% of FSLR's 156.42%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
82.82%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of FSLR's 156.42%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
79.91%
Net income growth under 50% of FSLR's 219.09%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
79.81%
EPS growth under 50% of FSLR's 219.57%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
79.81%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of FSLR's 217.39%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.07%
Share count expansion well above FSLR's 0.03%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.07%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x FSLR's 1.32%. 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.
-32.48%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-24.39%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-35.27%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while FSLR stands at 48.83%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-43.94%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
9.00%
Positive 3Y CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-162.65%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-581.92%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-50.61%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-307.66%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-171.29%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-54.33%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-103.20%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FSLR stands at 186.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-104.46%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 10.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-103.54%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
5.46%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. FSLR's 81.19%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
3.93%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. FSLR's 13.33%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.83%
Asset growth above 1.5x FSLR's 0.98%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-64.84%
We have a declining book value while FSLR shows 1.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
48.51%
Debt growth far above FSLR's 2.15%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-49.89%
Our R&D shrinks while FSLR invests at 9.92%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
17.32%
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.