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.
-8.91%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
41.64%
Positive gross profit growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-127.98%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
67.92%
Positive operating income growth while CSIQ is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-262.89%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-258.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-258.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.21%
Share reduction more than 1.5x CSIQ's 0.88%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-1.38%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4410.58%
Negative OCF growth while CSIQ is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-1144.84%
Negative FCF growth while CSIQ is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-54.29%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CSIQ stands at 158.66%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-14.73%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 66.81%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-17.78%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CSIQ stands at 138.46%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
48.68%
OCF/share CAGR of 48.68% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
31.34%
OCF/share CAGR of 31.34% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
40.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 40.35% while CSIQ is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
71.54%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of CSIQ's 122.76%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
80.40%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of CSIQ's 148.82%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
70.03%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of CSIQ's 138.82%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
-81.46%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 172.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-65.29%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CSIQ is at 85.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
202.35%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x CSIQ's 36.69%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while CSIQ stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital 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.
9.03%
AR growth well above CSIQ's 8.77%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
14.54%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. CSIQ's 36.60%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.03%
Asset growth well under 50% of CSIQ's 13.32%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-7.97%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-3.03%
We’re deleveraging while CSIQ stands at 21.52%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
14.78%
We increase R&D while CSIQ cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
0.50%
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.