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.
-22.60%
Negative revenue growth while TSM stands at 87.88%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-70.88%
Negative gross profit growth while TSM is at 358.49%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-176.56%
Negative EBIT growth while TSM is at 1977.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-176.56%
Negative operating income growth while TSM is at 1977.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-168.40%
Negative net income growth while TSM stands at 1467.93%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-167.50%
Negative EPS growth while TSM is at 1460.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-172.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TSM is at 1460.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.05%
Share reduction while TSM is at 1.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-6.18%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.59%. 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.
-44.26%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
148.21%
Positive FCF growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
589.93%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 214.71%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
67.87%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 18.33%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
41.71%
Positive 3Y CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1578.93%
OCF/share CAGR of 1578.93% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
272.05%
Positive OCF/share growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
56.03%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-1188.09%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is at 208.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-532.96%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is 13.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-247.45%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
1845.86%
Equity/share CAGR of 1845.86% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
131.20%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 20.55%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
90.55%
Positive short-term equity growth while TSM is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
4.24%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. TSM's 62.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.89%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. TSM's 28.42%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
4.01%
Asset growth at 50-75% of TSM's 6.29%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
-2.67%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.71%
Our R&D shrinks while TSM invests at 36.66%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.68%
We cut SG&A while TSM invests at 60.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.