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.
48.13%
Revenue growth above 1.5x CSIQ's 31.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
268.96%
Positive gross profit growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
22.43%
Positive EBIT growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
7.68%
Positive operating income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
42.14%
Positive net income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
41.79%
Positive EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
41.79%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.05%
Share reduction more than 1.5x CSIQ's 0.77%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.05%
Slight or no buyback while CSIQ is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
83.55%
OCF growth of 83.55% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
54.77%
FCF growth of 54.77% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest improvements in free cash can accelerate further.
15.45%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CSIQ's 337.55%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-36.17%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 105.26%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-31.06%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-6.52%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
28.49%
OCF/share CAGR of 28.49% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
22.80%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 22.80% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
-458.30%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 1090.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
4.71%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 122.33%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-259.26%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-53.50%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 289.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-46.51%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 80.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-52.35%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 39.94%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
3.82%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. CSIQ's 21.93%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-8.26%
Inventory is declining while CSIQ stands at 6.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.10%
Negative asset growth while CSIQ invests at 6.57%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.89%
We have a declining book value while CSIQ shows 3.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
18.11%
Debt growth far above CSIQ's 3.15%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
4.75%
We increase R&D while CSIQ cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.44%
We cut SG&A while CSIQ invests at 4.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.