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.
-19.78%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 4.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
5.31%
Some D&A expansion while MCHP is negative at -0.33%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-41.41%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-13.92%
Both cut yoy SBC, with MCHP at -0.23%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
4766.67%
Slight usage while MCHP is negative at -159.04%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
1045.00%
AR growth while MCHP is negative at -211.72%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
49.16%
Some inventory rise while MCHP is negative at -17.68%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
-137.04%
Negative yoy AP while MCHP is 20.57%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
15.66%
Some yoy usage while MCHP is negative at -103.49%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
112.12%
Some yoy increase while MCHP is negative at -24.59%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-0.67%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with MCHP at -44.48%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
23.21%
CapEx growth well above MCHP's 20.24%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
-400.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
16.72%
Purchases growth of 16.72% while MCHP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
18.23%
Liquidation growth of 18.23% while MCHP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-20.00%
Both yoy lines negative, with MCHP at -69.30%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
81.64%
Investing outflow well above MCHP's 8.10%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-33.82%
Negative yoy issuance while MCHP is 69.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-41.30%
Both yoy lines negative, with MCHP at -19.35%. Martin Whitman would see an overall reduced environment for buybacks in the niche or cyclical factor driving capital usage.