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
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.
-5.75%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 11.16%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-8.29%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 15.39%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-0.24%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 18.28%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
0.24%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 21.94%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
9.66%
Net income growth comparable to MCHP's 9.14%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
11.27%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 5.26%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
8.45%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 5.26%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-1.01%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.44%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.59%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
8.09%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.27%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-6.68%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 7.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
0.76%
FCF growth under 50% of MCHP's 8.02%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
72.41%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 89.88%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
34.31%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 50.04%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
16.04%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 27.19%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
177.75%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 35.19%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
85.39%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 111.85%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
1.19%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 77.35%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
120.11%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 138.32%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
96.83%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 50.81%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
46.06%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
22.64%
Below 50% of MCHP's 136.21%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
19.66%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 15.90%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
22.49%
Positive short-term equity growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
511.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 511.63% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
336.24%
5Y dividend/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 387.41%. Bill Ackman wants more robust earnings or a higher payout ratio to match the competitor.
29.79%
3Y dividend/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 29.62%. Walter Schloss finds parallel short-term dividend strategies for both companies.
-13.45%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 21.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
6.74%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 3.36%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
5.95%
Asset growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.98%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.84%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.88%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-6.00%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 9.74%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.26%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 8.36%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.