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.
-6.66%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 3.39%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.81%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 19.26%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-18.38%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 186.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.60%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 225.69%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-18.76%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 486.75%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-17.86%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 500.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-17.86%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 460.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.91%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.81%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 2.47%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
6.82%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.29%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
4.17%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
6.33%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
160.86%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 195.92%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
43.38%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 61.08%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-7.30%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 45.84%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
168.15%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 129.03%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
26.50%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 39.84%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
5.20%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 9.07%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
137.70%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 222.79%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
463.32%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-41.46%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
117.37%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 70.33%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
36.69%
Below 50% of MCHP's 81.96%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
11.74%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 18.86%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
2060.94%
10Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 1667.56%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if a higher payout growth rate remains sustainable long term.
172.72%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 11.84%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
129.94%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 3.64%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-21.06%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 29.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
0.29%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.59%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 0.21%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.31%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.06%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 1.23%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.98%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-0.86%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.