PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (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.
2.45%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.03%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
5.25%
Some D&A expansion while MCHP is negative at -1.75%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-19.72%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
9.43%
SBC growth well above MCHP's 2.02%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
108.15%
Slight usage while MCHP is negative at -1577.38%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-134.48%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with MCHP at -51.03%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
72.62%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 151.89%, indicating lean supply management. David Dodd would confirm no demand shortfall.
232.47%
A yoy AP increase while MCHP is negative at -16.62%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
96.78%
Some yoy usage while MCHP is negative at -176.13%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
102.42%
Some yoy increase while MCHP is negative at -35.82%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
54.47%
Some CFO growth while MCHP is negative at -37.96%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
14.74%
Lower CapEx growth vs. MCHP's 33.03%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
-98.96%
Both yoy lines negative, with MCHP at -66.67%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
56.87%
Purchases growth of 56.87% while MCHP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
18.97%
Liquidation growth of 18.97% while MCHP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
175.00%
Growth well above MCHP's 35.22%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
100.00%
Investing outflow well above MCHP's 33.43%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
89.93%
We repay more while MCHP is negative at -53.91%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
281.54%
Stock issuance far above MCHP's 65.36%. Michael Burry flags a significant dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach unless ROI is very high.
-2266.67%
Both yoy lines negative, with MCHP at -142.20%. Martin Whitman would see an overall reduced environment for buybacks in the niche or cyclical factor driving capital usage.