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.
19.27%
Revenue growth under 50% of FSLR's 69.18%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
12.71%
Positive gross profit growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-233.84%
Negative EBIT growth while FSLR is at 342.55%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-90.19%
Negative operating income growth while FSLR is at 342.55%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-91.84%
Negative net income growth while FSLR stands at 229.01%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-89.47%
Negative EPS growth while FSLR is at 226.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-89.47%
Negative diluted EPS growth while FSLR is at 226.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.33%
Share reduction more than 1.5x FSLR's 1.03%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.33%
Diluted share count expanding well above FSLR's 0.61%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
48.66%
OCF growth under 50% of FSLR's 163.40%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
41.15%
FCF growth 50-75% of FSLR's 62.31%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
-52.25%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
2.11%
Positive 5Y CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-21.57%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 2.63%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
14.74%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
72.34%
Below 50% of FSLR's 151.35%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
43.59%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 527.07%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
48.93%
Positive 10Y CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
46.04%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 5.13%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-142.56%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSLR is 390.87%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-75.77%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FSLR stands at 42.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-55.61%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 9.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
313.59%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 11.00%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
15.84%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. FSLR's 52.08%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-9.40%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-2.18%
Negative asset growth while FSLR invests at 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
16.14%
Positive BV/share change while FSLR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.70%
We have some new debt while FSLR reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
47.80%
We increase R&D while FSLR cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
20.84%
SG&A growth well above FSLR's 5.90%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.