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.
-8.89%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 8.19%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-8.13%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 14.52%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-13.11%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-12.58%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 30.50%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-73.23%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 27.74%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-72.87%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 24.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-73.02%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 21.74%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.30%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 3.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.10%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 1.59%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
23.81%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.83%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
12.02%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 10.92%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
10.55%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 8.90%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
46.89%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 242.42%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
42.24%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 130.31%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
21.89%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 64.00%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
88.82%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 339.10%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
100.89%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 172.22%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
61.14%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 42.20%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
-36.54%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is at 4.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
47.24%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 46.81%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
-55.69%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 10.07%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
44.34%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 59.81%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
6.56%
Below 50% of MCHP's 42.07%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
5.71%
Below 50% of MCHP's 37.29%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
516.71%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 40.97%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
193.79%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 6.17%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
82.37%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 4.44%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-18.91%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 0.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.57%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.21%
Asset growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 7.47%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
-5.64%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 23.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
13.79%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
2.93%
We increase R&D while MCHP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.73%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.