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.
13.98%
Revenue growth under 50% of CSIQ's 29.05%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
79.15%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of CSIQ's 105.89%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
237.35%
EBIT growth below 50% of CSIQ's 1879.65%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
257.73%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of CSIQ's 351.91%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
453.98%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x CSIQ's 319.73%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
456.25%
EPS growth above 1.5x CSIQ's 300.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
386.67%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x CSIQ's 293.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
0.31%
Share reduction more than 1.5x CSIQ's 9.15%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
14.89%
Diluted share count expanding well above CSIQ's 12.89%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
143.62%
OCF growth of 143.62% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
104.87%
FCF growth of 104.87% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest improvements in free cash can accelerate further.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
15.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CSIQ's 42.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-5.72%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 17.62%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-87.00%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
178.97%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 178.97% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
191.28%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x CSIQ's 83.53%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
325.66%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x CSIQ's 23.18%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-28.22%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-40.33%
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.
-13.38%
Firm’s AR is declining while CSIQ shows 0.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
22.49%
Inventory growth well above CSIQ's 0.99%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
2.33%
Asset growth well under 50% of CSIQ's 8.18%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
12.82%
50-75% of CSIQ's 18.40%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
1.67%
Debt shrinking faster vs. CSIQ's 16.04%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
14.33%
We increase R&D while CSIQ cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.92%
SG&A declining or stable vs. CSIQ's 25.66%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.