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.
10.12%
Revenue growth under 50% of TSM's 28.25%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
12.17%
Gross profit growth under 50% of TSM's 28.25%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
6.58%
Positive EBIT growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
6.58%
Positive operating income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
10.66%
Net income growth at 75-90% of TSM's 13.87%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
-11.11%
Negative EPS growth while TSM is at 383.58%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
6.67%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of TSM's 383.58%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
22.61%
Slight or no buybacks while TSM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.61%
Diluted share count expanding well above TSM's 0.05%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.14%
Negative OCF growth while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-92.82%
Negative FCF growth while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
57.80%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 169.67%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
57.80%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 169.67%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
57.80%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 203.89%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
172.15%
OCF/share CAGR of 172.15% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
172.15%
OCF/share CAGR of 172.15% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
172.15%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 172.15% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
97.53%
Positive 10Y CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
97.53%
Positive 5Y CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
97.53%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 2.03%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
202.33%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with TSM's 208.71%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
202.33%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with TSM's 208.71%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
202.33%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 161.94%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
0.61%
AR growth of 0.61% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
-3.53%
Inventory is declining while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.36%
Asset growth of 3.36% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
-8.46%
We have a declining book value while TSM shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.12%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
20.07%
R&D growth of 20.07% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
13.57%
SG&A growth of 13.57% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.