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.
-62.13%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-65.00%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-108.93%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-106.87%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-107.11%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-107.05%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-108.75%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.49%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 0.22%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-19.53%
Reduced diluted shares while CSIQ is at 0.05%. 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.
-192.69%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-481.43%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
5.36%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CSIQ's 9170.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-8.51%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 97.62%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-24.46%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 106.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
83.11%
OCF/share CAGR of 83.11% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
-532.42%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
29.72%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 29.72% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
96.49%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 3081.38%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-154.92%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is 3068.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
89.12%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 324.34%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-24.23%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 22.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
1.53%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 28.44%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative near-term dividend growth while CSIQ invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-11.26%
Firm’s AR is declining while CSIQ shows 0.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
45.07%
We show growth while CSIQ is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-5.58%
Negative asset growth while CSIQ invests at 8.42%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.43%
We have a declining book value while CSIQ shows 2.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-13.00%
We’re deleveraging while CSIQ stands at 15.03%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-6.85%
Our R&D shrinks while CSIQ invests at 13.30%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
3.64%
SG&A declining or stable vs. CSIQ's 7.44%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.