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.
-23.77%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-392.47%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
44.06%
Positive EBIT growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
-116.79%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
43.28%
Positive net income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
43.75%
Positive EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
43.75%
Positive diluted EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.41%
Share count expansion well above FSLR's 0.19%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.41%
Slight or no buyback while FSLR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-466.37%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-118.25%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-3.74%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-56.64%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-12.41%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-65.78%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-354.59%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR is at 9.58%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
60.99%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-438.19%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-218.94%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-1.70%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-115.11%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FSLR stands at 133.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-121.56%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 4.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-120.43%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
-10.00%
Firm’s AR is declining while FSLR shows 8.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
8.52%
Inventory growth well above FSLR's 16.76%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.91%
Negative asset growth while FSLR invests at 1.90%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-47.14%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
7.93%
Debt shrinking faster vs. FSLR's 22.26%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-3.72%
Our R&D shrinks while FSLR invests at 2.29%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
16.75%
We expand SG&A while FSLR cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.