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.
-9.27%
Negative revenue growth while CSIQ stands at 44.30%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
81.85%
Gross profit growth similar to CSIQ's 90.44%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
203.22%
Positive EBIT growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
233.05%
Positive operating income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
135.77%
Positive net income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
134.78%
Positive EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
132.61%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.71%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 0.38%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
12.03%
Diluted share count expanding well above CSIQ's 1.42%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-139.66%
Negative OCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-186.10%
Negative FCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
411.97%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CSIQ's 9758.11%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-1.10%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 15.64%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
18.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x CSIQ's 14.09%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
-150.68%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-244.90%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
22.96%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 22.96% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
144.97%
Positive 10Y CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-58.77%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
348.70%
Positive short-term CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-34.99%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-48.30%
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.
36.40%
AR growth well above CSIQ's 34.88%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-16.42%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
16.15%
Positive asset growth while CSIQ is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.18%
Positive BV/share change while CSIQ is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
32.39%
We have some new debt while CSIQ reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-1.03%
Our R&D shrinks while CSIQ invests at 24.53%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-11.49%
We cut SG&A while CSIQ invests at 555.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.