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.
-1.49%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 7.59%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.01%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 11.52%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-1.42%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 71.94%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
0.44%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 73.51%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-4.70%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 31.65%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.35%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 33.33%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.35%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 35.71%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.46%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.54%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 1.35%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.15%
Dividend growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 0.12%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if management’s capital return strategy is more aggressive yet sustainable.
-61.47%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 31.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-64.74%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 23.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
62.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 197.07%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
68.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 67.40%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-5.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 35.90%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
88.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 151.07%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
117.10%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 29.58%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-3.34%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 16.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
112.73%
Below 50% of MCHP's 503.96%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
3278.82%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-21.06%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
40.88%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 69.39%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
36.00%
Below 50% of MCHP's 80.11%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
8.43%
Below 50% of MCHP's 17.45%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1308.17%
Similar 10Y dividend/share CAGR to MCHP's 1374.39%. Walter Schloss expects both to share consistent earnings expansions and payout practices.
171.86%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 10.85%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
129.32%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 3.45%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
12.64%
AR growth well above MCHP's 1.00%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-0.98%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 5.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.02%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 0.84%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.28%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 0.54%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
9.58%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.78%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 3.76%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.90%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 1.49%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.