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.
13.87%
Revenue growth above 1.5x FSLR's 1.28%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
29.38%
Gross profit growth under 50% of FSLR's 190.44%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
510.02%
Positive EBIT growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
150.57%
Positive operating income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
314.88%
Positive net income growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
316.67%
Positive EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
300.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.10%
Share count expansion well above FSLR's 0.01%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
10.66%
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.
90.53%
OCF growth above 1.5x FSLR's 46.53%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
68.62%
FCF growth above 1.5x FSLR's 14.81%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-49.92%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-21.54%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-18.17%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 13.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
88.61%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of FSLR's 371.68%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
84.07%
Positive OCF/share growth while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
88.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSLR's 140.15%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
290.88%
Positive 10Y CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
300.31%
Positive 5Y CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
839.36%
Positive short-term CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-65.99%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FSLR stands at 37.54%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-36.42%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FSLR is at 3.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
373.90%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 11.20%. 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.
18.10%
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.
2.57%
Inventory growth well above FSLR's 0.02%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
11.78%
Asset growth above 1.5x FSLR's 0.99%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
35.07%
Positive BV/share change while FSLR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-5.16%
We’re deleveraging while FSLR stands at 48.24%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-8.39%
Our R&D shrinks while FSLR invests at 15.67%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-6.36%
We cut SG&A while FSLR invests at 19.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.