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.
0.83%
Positive revenue growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
22.37%
Positive gross profit growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
312.32%
Positive EBIT growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
1056.53%
Positive operating income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
255.43%
Positive net income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
248.28%
Positive EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
239.29%
Positive diluted EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.84%
Share count expansion well above FSLR's 0.21%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
13.53%
Slight or no buyback while FSLR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
154.55%
Similar OCF growth to FSLR's 163.42%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
139.78%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x FSLR's 123.43%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
-70.49%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-41.23%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-43.85%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 100.47%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
111.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSLR's 170.76%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
105.87%
Below 50% of FSLR's 326.55%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
114.73%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 35.27%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
128.77%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 9.30% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
185.94%
Below 50% of FSLR's 491.64%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
113.73%
Below 50% of FSLR's 267.57%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-83.20%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FSLR stands at 27.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-72.76%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
938.19%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 11.53%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-16.40%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
2.23%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. FSLR's 9.59%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-3.02%
Negative asset growth while FSLR invests at 1.96%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
22.02%
BV/share growth above 1.5x FSLR's 1.35%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-16.43%
We’re deleveraging while FSLR stands at 82.29%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-6.06%
Our R&D shrinks while FSLR invests at 20.44%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
18.82%
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.