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.
-22.13%
Negative revenue growth while CSIQ stands at 31.40%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
71.96%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x CSIQ's 21.20%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
139.53%
Positive EBIT growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
71.69%
Operating income growth above 1.5x CSIQ's 29.86%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
130.29%
Positive net income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
116.67%
Positive EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
100.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.06%
Share reduction more than 1.5x CSIQ's 0.64%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
3.38%
Diluted share count expanding well above CSIQ's 1.73%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-311.47%
Negative OCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-447.93%
Negative FCF growth while CSIQ is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-71.88%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 73.93%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-42.02%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-53.61%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
14.81%
OCF/share CAGR of 14.81% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
66.29%
OCF/share CAGR of 66.29% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-34.59%
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.
24.98%
Positive 10Y CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
163.56%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
167.47%
Positive short-term CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-100.41%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 114.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-100.54%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 83.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-101.20%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 51.94%. 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.
-11.54%
Firm’s AR is declining while CSIQ shows 10.25%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-50.57%
Inventory is declining while CSIQ stands at 14.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-25.24%
Negative asset growth while CSIQ invests at 17.77%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-117.10%
We have a declining book value while CSIQ shows 16.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-7.17%
We’re deleveraging while CSIQ stands at 22.14%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-56.68%
Our R&D shrinks while CSIQ invests at 29.50%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-36.64%
We cut SG&A while CSIQ invests at 10.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.