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.
-13.64%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-21.56%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-62.75%
Negative EBIT growth while TSM is at 8.93%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-62.75%
Negative operating income growth while TSM is at 8.93%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-61.23%
Negative net income growth while TSM stands at 12.43%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-60.00%
Negative EPS growth while TSM is at 37.92%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-60.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TSM is at 37.92%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-5.32%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.23%
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.
-67.48%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-87.03%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
320.91%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to TSM's 344.70%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
320.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 178.09%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
117.89%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to TSM's 107.81%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
777.42%
OCF/share CAGR of 777.42% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
777.42%
OCF/share CAGR of 777.42% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
203.94%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 203.94% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
131.30%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 255.06%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
131.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 170.08%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
-13.73%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TSM is 489.68%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
824.39%
Equity/share CAGR of 824.39% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
824.39%
Equity/share CAGR of 824.39% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
372.52%
Equity/share CAGR of 372.52% 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.
0.81%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. TSM's 18.04%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
14.30%
We show growth while TSM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.36%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 3.35%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
8.80%
Under 50% of TSM's 20.82%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.05%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
3.38%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-56.97%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.