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.
-10.36%
Negative revenue growth while CSIQ stands at 4.68%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-33.63%
Negative gross profit growth while CSIQ is at 37.93%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-110.42%
Negative EBIT growth while CSIQ is at 111.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-105.75%
Negative operating income growth while CSIQ is at 1654.05%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-111.73%
Negative net income growth while CSIQ stands at 243.32%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-111.98%
Negative EPS growth while CSIQ is at 245.45%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-113.46%
Negative diluted EPS growth while CSIQ is at 227.27%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.55%
Share count expansion well above CSIQ's 0.10%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-14.46%
Reduced diluted shares while CSIQ is at 10.44%. 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.
-367.05%
Negative OCF growth while CSIQ is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-441.53%
Negative FCF growth while CSIQ is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-61.76%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 76.09%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-36.20%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 43.53%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-35.97%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
86.97%
OCF/share CAGR of 86.97% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
91.25%
OCF/share CAGR of 91.25% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
85.82%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 85.82% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
-1185.23%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CSIQ is at 177.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
54.60%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
65.83%
Positive short-term CAGR while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-87.55%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 106.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-78.76%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 67.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-38.27%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 39.06%. 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.
7.32%
AR growth well above CSIQ's 8.13%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
9.55%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. CSIQ's 34.16%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-3.14%
Negative asset growth while CSIQ invests at 4.63%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-11.71%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
4.40%
Debt growth far above CSIQ's 2.95%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
53.13%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. CSIQ's 24.00%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-9.08%
We cut SG&A while CSIQ invests at 12.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.