PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
176.45 - 178.59
86.62 - 184.48
124.91M / 173.95M (Avg.)
50.81 | 3.50
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.
15.64%
Positive revenue growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
13.58%
Positive gross profit growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
22.90%
EBIT growth below 50% of TSM's 149.76%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
22.90%
Operating income growth under 50% of TSM's 149.76%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
25.25%
Positive net income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
50.00%
Positive EPS growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
25.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-15.63%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
3.57%
Slight or no buyback while TSM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.49%
OCF growth of 100.49% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
-11.81%
Negative FCF growth while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
93.17%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 113.99%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
93.17%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 113.99%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
93.17%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to TSM's 87.21%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
188.68%
OCF/share CAGR of 188.68% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
188.68%
OCF/share CAGR of 188.68% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
188.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 188.68% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
168.12%
Positive 10Y CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
168.12%
Positive 5Y CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
168.12%
Positive short-term CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
95.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 95.63% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
95.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 95.63% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
95.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 95.63% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.14%
AR growth of 7.14% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
46.92%
Inventory growth of 46.92% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
121.35%
Asset growth of 121.35% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
54.53%
BV/share growth of 54.53% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-24.33%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
15.78%
R&D growth of 15.78% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
-2.31%
We cut SG&A while TSM invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.