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.
-6.35%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
26.53%
Positive gross profit growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
72.87%
Positive EBIT growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
78.67%
Positive operating income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
62.22%
Positive net income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
62.30%
Positive EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
62.30%
Positive diluted EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.12%
Share count expansion well above FSLR's 0.14%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.34%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x FSLR's 0.94%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
18.17%
Positive OCF growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
72.30%
Positive FCF growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
68.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 10964.63%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
54.18%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 247.69%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
46.43%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 28.85%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
127.60%
OCF/share CAGR of 127.60% while FSLR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
259.76%
Positive OCF/share growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
606.49%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 105.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
77.75%
Below 50% of FSLR's 798.70%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-402.72%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while FSLR is 15.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-448.13%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-30.93%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 189.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-47.25%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 25.06%. 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.
16.59%
Our AR growth while FSLR is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-3.44%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-5.33%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-5.21%
We have a declining book value while FSLR shows 1.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-12.86%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-25.47%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-31.19%
We cut SG&A while FSLR invests at 17.42%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.