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.
1.50%
Revenue growth similar to TSM's 1.57%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
4.89%
Positive gross profit growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-10.62%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-10.62%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-12.81%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-13.51%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-9.09%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.65%
Share count expansion well above TSM's 0.09%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.38%
Diluted share count expanding well above TSM's 0.00%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
77.62%
OCF growth above 1.5x TSM's 8.51%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
288.91%
Positive FCF growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
316.39%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 439.25%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
128.44%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 163.70%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
22.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 37.55%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
454.49%
OCF/share CAGR of 454.49% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
269.07%
OCF/share CAGR of 269.07% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-16.91%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM stands at 59.44%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
326.17%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 426.15%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
80.39%
Below 50% of TSM's 814.40%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
220.98%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 98.32%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
849.40%
Equity/share CAGR of 849.40% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
189.67%
Equity/share CAGR of 189.67% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
38.39%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to TSM's 40.45%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
-1.03%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-5.35%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
4.47%
Positive asset growth while TSM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.14%
50-75% of TSM's 7.17%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.47%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TSM's 0.55%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.52%
We expand SG&A while TSM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.