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.
-9.27%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
81.85%
Positive gross profit growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
203.22%
Positive EBIT growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
233.05%
Positive operating income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
135.77%
Positive net income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
134.78%
Positive EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
132.61%
Positive diluted EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.71%
Share count expansion well above FSLR's 2.29%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
12.03%
Diluted share count expanding well above FSLR's 1.97%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-139.66%
Negative OCF growth while FSLR is at 234.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-186.10%
Negative FCF growth while FSLR is at 2732.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
411.97%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 7344.78%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-1.10%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 74.29%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
18.56%
Positive 3Y CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-150.68%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-244.90%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR is at 236.25%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
22.96%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 177.14%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
144.97%
Below 50% of FSLR's 488.05%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-58.77%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
348.70%
Positive short-term CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-34.99%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 197.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-48.30%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 31.27%. 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.
36.40%
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.
-16.42%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
16.15%
Asset growth above 1.5x FSLR's 9.11%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.18%
Under 50% of FSLR's 10.61%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
32.39%
We have some new debt while FSLR reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-1.03%
Our R&D shrinks while FSLR invests at 3.45%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-11.49%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.