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.
6.86%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
7.84%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
55.61%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
50.63%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
68.30%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
65.22%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
72.73%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.26%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.94%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.26%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.10%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
50.33%
OCF growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 85.77%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
52.89%
FCF growth under 50% of MCHP's 130.94%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
157.09%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MCHP's 151.02%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
22.78%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 43.25%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
50.86%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 21.53%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
190.70%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 324.26%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-5.25%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 44.21%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
34.69%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 3.13%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
682.46%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 257.60% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-7.84%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 12.41%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
90.65%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 0.76%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
63.47%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 96.02%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
22.37%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 16.00%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
34.60%
Below 50% of MCHP's 85.22%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
643.71%
Dividend/share CAGR of 643.71% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
113.74%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 47.71%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
55.92%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.48%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
10.22%
Our AR growth while MCHP is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
1.73%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 4.32%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-2.44%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 0.15%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.05%
1.25-1.5x MCHP's 0.95%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-11.01%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.65%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.70%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 0.19%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.30%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.