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.
-46.68%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-76.32%
Negative gross profit growth while CSIQ is at 86.76%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-143.56%
Negative EBIT growth while CSIQ is at 97.01%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-132.73%
Negative operating income growth while CSIQ is at 76.07%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-133.34%
Negative net income growth while CSIQ stands at 90.43%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-166.67%
Negative EPS growth while CSIQ is at 90.97%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-166.67%
Negative diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is at 90.97%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
4.01%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 2.77%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-0.83%
Reduced diluted shares while CSIQ is at 2.77%. 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.
-216.20%
Negative OCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-51.35%
Negative FCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-19.45%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 1457.73%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-19.45%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 1457.73%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
271.89%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x CSIQ's 189.66%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
87.52%
OCF/share CAGR of 87.52% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
87.52%
OCF/share CAGR of 87.52% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-484.83%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
94.31%
Positive 10Y CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
94.31%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-2919.88%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
214.53%
Equity/share CAGR of 214.53% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
-48.16%
Firm’s AR is declining while CSIQ shows 18.79%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
36.51%
Inventory growth well above CSIQ's 8.91%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.54%
Asset growth well under 50% of CSIQ's 15.59%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
5.44%
Positive BV/share change while CSIQ is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.21%
We’re deleveraging while CSIQ stands at 62.43%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
594.66%
We increase R&D while CSIQ cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-4.82%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.