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.
-11.16%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-14.27%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 5.25%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-19.78%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 30.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-21.40%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 46.17%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-24.91%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 255.08%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-25.00%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 270.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-24.83%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 250.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.21%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.21%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 2.58%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
16.89%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.02%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-11.95%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-13.67%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
48.40%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 490.19%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
14.96%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 126.84%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
4.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 104.82%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
133.26%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 603.59%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
54.69%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 66.96%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
35.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 71.03%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
117.46%
Below 50% of MCHP's 488.43%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
45.49%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 31.87%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
9.10%
Below 50% of MCHP's 122.78%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
21.96%
Below 50% of MCHP's 310.36%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-3.83%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 108.39%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-9.21%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 111.14%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
651.36%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 7.71%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
165.01%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.82%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
79.91%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 1.69%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-19.97%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 61.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-1.91%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 1.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.14%
Asset growth well under 50% of MCHP's 1.07%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.66%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 2.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.20%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.85%
We increase R&D while MCHP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.26%
We expand SG&A while MCHP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.