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.
1.97%
Positive revenue growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
4.02%
Positive gross profit growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
9.76%
Positive EBIT growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
9.76%
Positive operating income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
4.97%
Positive net income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
5.26%
Positive EPS growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1.75%
Positive diluted EPS growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.63%
Share count expansion well above TSM's 0.01%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.89%
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.
-107.79%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-148.16%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
352.22%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 235.33%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
53.06%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 37.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
13.23%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 26.94%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-134.04%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-105.37%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM is at 18.86%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-101.68%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM stands at 3.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
404.31%
Below 50% of TSM's 903.44%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
90.46%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 13.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-0.72%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TSM is 30.56%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
1080.32%
Equity/share CAGR of 1080.32% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
107.36%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 27.77%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
30.25%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 20.92%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
41.26%
AR growth well above TSM's 9.09%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
17.38%
Inventory growth well above TSM's 11.90%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.05%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 4.34%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
5.61%
Similar to TSM's 5.81%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
-1.44%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 9.97%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.86%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.05%
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.