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.
4.54%
Revenue growth under 50% of FSLR's 59.38%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.76%
Negative gross profit growth while FSLR is at 188.88%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-91.91%
Negative EBIT growth while FSLR is at 6.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
76.66%
Operating income growth above 1.5x FSLR's 6.04%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-94.39%
Negative net income growth while FSLR stands at 84.65%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-94.87%
Negative EPS growth while FSLR is at 84.61%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-94.44%
Negative diluted EPS growth while FSLR is at 84.61%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.06%
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.
-8.82%
Reduced diluted shares while FSLR is at 0.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-119.63%
Negative OCF growth while FSLR is at 516.57%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-13.53%
Negative FCF growth while FSLR is at 596.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-50.04%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-39.49%
Negative 5Y CAGR while FSLR stands at 189.55%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-27.93%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-105.61%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR stands at 98.31%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-119.42%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR is at 79.54%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-341.68%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while FSLR stands at 0.60%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
103.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while FSLR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
101.07%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to FSLR's 98.29%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
22.42%
Below 50% of FSLR's 87.44%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-60.55%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FSLR stands at 32.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
222.10%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 12.14%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
4848.85%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FSLR's 13.24%. 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.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while FSLR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.03%
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.
38.80%
We show growth while FSLR is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
3.64%
Asset growth well under 50% of FSLR's 10.12%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.53%
BV/share growth above 1.5x FSLR's 0.12%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
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.
-18.04%
Our R&D shrinks while FSLR invests at 7.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-5.70%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.