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.
-40.45%
Negative revenue growth while CSIQ stands at 28.51%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
144.12%
Positive gross profit growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
83.79%
Positive EBIT growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
81.76%
Positive operating income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
79.61%
Positive net income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
79.66%
Positive EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
79.61%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.49%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 0.11%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.43%
Diluted share count expanding well above CSIQ's 0.03%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-587.06%
Negative OCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-259.95%
Negative FCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-19.36%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 289.27%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-47.70%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 299.68%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-16.30%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 56.26%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-89.40%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-218.55%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-93.69%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-644.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 6.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-79.81%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is 832.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-1039.85%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-70.19%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 239.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-56.85%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 185.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-69.96%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 40.75%. 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.
3.38%
Our AR growth while CSIQ is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
0.51%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. CSIQ's 19.65%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
4.23%
Positive asset growth while CSIQ is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
139.76%
BV/share growth above 1.5x CSIQ's 7.78%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.20%
We have some new debt while CSIQ reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-4.70%
Our R&D shrinks while CSIQ invests at 10.92%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-10.20%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.