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.
-1.54%
Negative revenue growth while CSIQ stands at 31.83%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-67.59%
Negative gross profit growth while CSIQ is at 58.06%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-154.70%
Negative EBIT growth while CSIQ is at 179.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-167.27%
Negative operating income growth while CSIQ is at 240.96%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-126.58%
Negative net income growth while CSIQ stands at 105.11%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-129.27%
Negative EPS growth while CSIQ is at 105.56%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-126.83%
Negative diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is at 98.11%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.48%
Share reduction while CSIQ is at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.13%
Diluted share count expanding well above CSIQ's 0.14%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-185.68%
Negative OCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-120.29%
Negative FCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
118.93%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CSIQ's 11821.10%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-71.86%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 89.63%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-51.76%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 193.66%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-59829.12%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-185.54%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 386.02%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-283.83%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 345.38%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-3321.62%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 3093.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-159.04%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is 86.95%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
22.92%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 145.86%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-3.86%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 5630.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-38.42%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 17.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
27.56%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 117.59%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.29%
Firm’s AR is declining while CSIQ shows 22.73%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
9.37%
We show growth while CSIQ is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
10.53%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x CSIQ's 8.32%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
-5.07%
We have a declining book value while CSIQ shows 7.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
55.83%
We have some new debt while CSIQ reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
29.59%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. CSIQ's 18.82%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
30.25%
We expand SG&A while CSIQ cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.