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.
8.81%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.39%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
9.81%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
15.53%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
15.39%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
15.19%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
15.71%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
14.49%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.32%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 6.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.20%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.15%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.06%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MCHP cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
95.43%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
115.37%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
37.03%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 130.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
9.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 21.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
18.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 25.74%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
158.94%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 33.04%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
95.19%
Positive OCF/share growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
74.36%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 110.79%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
-46.89%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
40.42%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
36.42%
Below 50% of MCHP's 372.73%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
20.58%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 27.83%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
5.27%
Below 50% of MCHP's 12.01%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-1.05%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
1158.01%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 168.85%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
193.41%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MCHP is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
35.90%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MCHP cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
6.23%
AR growth well above MCHP's 1.45%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
3.93%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 19.78%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.04%
Asset growth well under 50% of MCHP's 19.13%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.17%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-12.29%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 44.61%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.90%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 12.49%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
2.95%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MCHP's 20.06%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.