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.
18.82%
Revenue growth under 50% of FSLR's 55.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-14.41%
Negative gross profit growth while FSLR is at 97.86%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
154.68%
EBIT growth 50-75% of FSLR's 240.42%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
-285.20%
Negative operating income growth while FSLR is at 240.42%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
123.94%
Net income growth at 50-75% of FSLR's 190.62%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
124.49%
EPS growth at 50-75% of FSLR's 188.37%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
124.49%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of FSLR's 192.86%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
0.08%
Share count expansion well above FSLR's 0.01%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.69%
Diluted share count expanding well above FSLR's 0.10%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
89.83%
Positive OCF growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
53.97%
Positive FCF growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-61.45%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while FSLR stands at 11.22%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-69.98%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 84.44%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-31.34%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 29.43%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-101.02%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR stands at 159.92%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-100.40%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
92.53%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of FSLR's 118.32%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
113.73%
Similar net income/share CAGR to FSLR's 125.74%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
105.87%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of FSLR's 117.82%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
110.42%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of FSLR's 148.56%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
-82.79%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FSLR stands at 32.39%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-69.16%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 11.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
251.81%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 12.74%. 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.
-29.28%
Firm’s AR is declining while FSLR shows 66.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-11.18%
Inventory is declining while FSLR stands at 2.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
8.82%
Asset growth above 1.5x FSLR's 2.00%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
6.19%
BV/share growth above 1.5x FSLR's 2.21%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.24%
We have some new debt while FSLR reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
46.53%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. FSLR's 17.52%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
49.72%
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.