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.
34.52%
Positive revenue growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
33.80%
Positive gross profit growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
65.60%
Positive EBIT growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
65.60%
Positive operating income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
63.05%
Positive net income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
50.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x TSM's 6.80%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
80.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x TSM's 6.80%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
23.13%
Slight or no buybacks while TSM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
4.21%
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.
144.30%
OCF growth of 144.30% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can expand into a larger competitive lead.
-1960.10%
Negative FCF growth while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
228.72%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to TSM's 214.89%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
228.72%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to TSM's 214.89%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
228.72%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 101.02%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
660.31%
OCF/share CAGR of 660.31% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
660.31%
OCF/share CAGR of 660.31% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
660.31%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 660.31% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
322.69%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 2.54% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
322.69%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 2.54%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
322.69%
Positive short-term CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
419.51%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 269.92%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
419.51%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 269.92%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
419.51%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 124.57%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
25.23%
AR growth of 25.23% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
77.51%
Inventory growth of 77.51% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
20.51%
Asset growth of 20.51% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
1.59%
BV/share growth of 1.59% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-0.39%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.32%
R&D growth of 0.32% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
36.46%
SG&A growth of 36.46% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.