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.
38.05%
Revenue growth above 1.5x TSM's 0.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
33.90%
Positive gross profit growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-31.92%
Negative EBIT growth while TSM is at 1.44%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-31.92%
Negative operating income growth while TSM is at 1.44%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-36.35%
Negative net income growth while TSM stands at 3.05%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-34.78%
Negative EPS growth while TSM is at 3.17%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-36.76%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TSM is at 3.17%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.87%
Share reduction more than 1.5x TSM's 1.98%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.28%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.35%. 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.
816.19%
Positive OCF growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
293.17%
Positive FCF growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
505.77%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 78.44%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
28.61%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 62.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-6.24%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TSM stands at 42.13%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
2606.74%
OCF/share CAGR of 2606.74% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
111.21%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 25.76%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
171.41%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 20.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-2169.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is at 66.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-961.70%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is 96.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-313.69%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TSM is 78.71%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
1857.62%
Equity/share CAGR of 1857.62% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
95.08%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 24.90%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
38.73%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 0.56%. 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.
-4.41%
Firm’s AR is declining while TSM shows 12.47%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-39.15%
Inventory is declining while TSM stands at 8.51%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-5.13%
Negative asset growth while TSM invests at 5.40%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.00%
We have a declining book value while TSM shows 4.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.10%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 1.81%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
42.51%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
37.51%
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.