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.
-26.70%
Negative revenue growth while TSM stands at 14.09%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-52.07%
Negative gross profit growth while TSM is at 39.32%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-94.74%
Negative EBIT growth while TSM is at 46.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-94.74%
Negative operating income growth while TSM is at 46.68%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-93.69%
Negative net income growth while TSM stands at 84.96%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-93.48%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-92.31%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
1.07%
Share reduction more than 1.5x TSM's 8.56%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-7.56%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 8.56%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-98.63%
Negative OCF growth while TSM is at 28.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-198.48%
Negative FCF growth while TSM is at 69.50%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
301.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 189.83%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
301.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 142.17%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
301.46%
Positive 3Y CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
114.83%
OCF/share CAGR of 114.83% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
114.83%
OCF/share CAGR of 114.83% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
114.83%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 114.83% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
-42.53%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is at 26.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-42.53%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is 42.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-42.53%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
684.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 684.85% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
684.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 684.85% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
684.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 684.85% 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.
-12.14%
Firm’s AR is declining while TSM shows 45.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
12.37%
Inventory growth well above TSM's 24.14%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.96%
Asset growth well under 50% of TSM's 5.04%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.64%
Positive BV/share change while TSM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.51%
Debt shrinking faster vs. TSM's 28.25%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
9.02%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TSM's 12.11%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-4.20%
We cut SG&A while TSM invests at 57.79%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.