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.
14.76%
Positive revenue growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
14.50%
Positive gross profit growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
13.53%
Positive EBIT growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
13.53%
Positive operating income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
23.16%
Positive net income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-41.67%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-40.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TSM is at 120.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
103.97%
Slight or no buybacks while TSM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
104.39%
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.
126.49%
OCF growth of 126.49% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
418.36%
FCF growth of 418.36% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest improvements in free cash can accelerate further.
-5.67%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while TSM stands at 103.53%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-5.67%
Negative 5Y CAGR while TSM stands at 103.53%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-5.67%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TSM stands at 70.06%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
414.93%
OCF/share CAGR of 414.93% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
414.93%
OCF/share CAGR of 414.93% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
414.93%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 414.93% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
45.15%
Positive 10Y CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
45.15%
Positive 5Y CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
45.15%
Positive short-term CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
7.87%
Equity/share CAGR of 7.87% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
7.87%
Equity/share CAGR of 7.87% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
7.87%
Equity/share CAGR of 7.87% 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.
18.19%
AR growth of 18.19% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
23.34%
Inventory growth of 23.34% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
13.26%
Asset growth of 13.26% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
-37.80%
We have a declining book value while TSM shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-28.87%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
12.96%
R&D growth of 12.96% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
20.55%
SG&A growth of 20.55% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.