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.
9.09%
Positive revenue growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
143.69%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x CSIQ's 8.91%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-80.46%
Negative EBIT growth while CSIQ is at 16.13%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-129.88%
Negative operating income growth while CSIQ is at 31.88%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-112.36%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-112.94%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-114.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.06%
Share reduction more than 1.5x CSIQ's 0.59%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-14.56%
Reduced diluted shares while CSIQ is at 0.97%. 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.
55.50%
OCF growth of 55.50% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
28.19%
FCF growth of 28.19% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest improvements in free cash can accelerate further.
-32.22%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 112.88%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-33.90%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-36.73%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 11.51%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-130.37%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-2.41%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
72.75%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 72.75% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
-151.13%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 37.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-143.15%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
64.09%
Below 50% of CSIQ's 260.34%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-108.18%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 111.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-111.06%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 87.47%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-112.67%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 38.42%. 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.
9.41%
AR growth well above CSIQ's 7.45%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
10.82%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. CSIQ's 22.27%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-2.54%
Negative asset growth while CSIQ invests at 5.34%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-65.72%
We have a declining book value while CSIQ shows 2.73%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-2.89%
We’re deleveraging while CSIQ stands at 8.13%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-11.33%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
4.45%
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.