PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.59M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-14.95%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 32.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-4.60%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with MCHP at -17.50%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-52.94%
Negative yoy deferred tax while MCHP stands at 54.65%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
24.14%
SBC growth while MCHP is negative at -7.05%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-206.15%
Negative yoy working capital usage while MCHP is 67.17%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-131.45%
AR is negative yoy while MCHP is 90.12%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-242.50%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with MCHP at -654.44%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-5300.00%
Negative yoy AP while MCHP is 222.56%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-479.49%
Both reduce yoy usage, with MCHP at -60.30%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
129.30%
Some yoy increase while MCHP is negative at -103.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-54.34%
Negative yoy CFO while MCHP is 1.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
24.39%
Some CapEx rise while MCHP is negative at -14.10%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-100.00%
Both yoy lines negative, with MCHP at -67.93%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
81.02%
Some yoy expansion while MCHP is negative at -140.25%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
105.95%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x MCHP's 57.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
94.83%
We have some outflow growth while MCHP is negative at -12.65%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
184.89%
We have mild expansions while MCHP is negative at -11899.29%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
100.00%
We repay more while MCHP is negative at -55.32%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
-38.18%
Both yoy lines negative, with MCHP at -74.29%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment or preference for internal financing over new equity in the niche.
-0.48%
We cut yoy buybacks while MCHP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.