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.
4.07%
Revenue growth under 50% of MCHP's 8.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.28%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 9.58%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
8.28%
EBIT growth below 50% of MCHP's 120.48%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
8.59%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 25.41%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
9.81%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 220.44%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
9.48%
EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 220.23%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
9.66%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 219.63%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.11%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 2.96%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
12.62%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 7.85%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-2.92%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-44.64%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
73.70%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 166.92%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
52.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 97.64%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
34.08%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 26.62%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
198.43%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 103.59%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
83.17%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 66.57%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
13.33%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 8.08%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
782.06%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
120.11%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 29.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
77.97%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
49.67%
Below 50% of MCHP's 103.58%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
37.23%
Below 50% of MCHP's 86.41%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
52.90%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 40.77%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
576.51%
Below 50% of MCHP's 2456416.81%. Michael Burry might see weaker long-term distribution growth, raising questions about the firm's capital allocation.
129.41%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 9.48%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
48.82%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 8.31%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
2.90%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MCHP's 11.62%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.52%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
6.03%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
9.61%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
6.03%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.26%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 8.76%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-1.94%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 7.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.