PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.59M (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.
-3.31%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 20.97%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.07%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 4.37%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-8.06%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-9.04%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-1.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.79%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.47%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.44%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.28%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.16%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.17%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-48.39%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-53.02%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
133.94%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 267.26%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
38.70%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 119.39%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
28.08%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 95.25%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
498.85%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 99.55%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
175.85%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 54.00%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
116.94%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 43.24%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
9620.45%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
187.69%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
83.48%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
25.60%
Below 50% of MCHP's 295.43%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-7.65%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 119.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-6.64%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 109.90%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
597.21%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 13.90%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
156.46%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.75%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
102.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 1.64%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
19.30%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MCHP's 40.04%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-3.88%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 132.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.79%
Asset growth well under 50% of MCHP's 133.12%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-3.87%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 55.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
21.41%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MCHP's 269.90%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-2.75%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 28.76%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.