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.
-19.03%
Negative revenue growth while TSM stands at 4.87%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-70.57%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-218.87%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-218.87%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-202.45%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-203.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-206.90%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.98%
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.
-3.09%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
736.35%
OCF growth above 1.5x TSM's 11.66%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
85.32%
FCF growth similar to TSM's 93.48%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
544.50%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 270.27%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
24.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 41.74%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-17.12%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TSM stands at 29.25%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
93.19%
OCF/share CAGR of 93.19% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
-35.81%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM is at 37.44%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-90.09%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM stands at 52.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-947.31%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is at 947.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-266.67%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is 8.47%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-177.98%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TSM is 25.10%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
1713.37%
Equity/share CAGR of 1713.37% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
91.55%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 29.48%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
16.70%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 27.38%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
-25.25%
Firm’s AR is declining while TSM shows 0.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
11.87%
We show growth while TSM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.89%
Negative asset growth while TSM invests at 4.49%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.44%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-1.51%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-3.42%
Our R&D shrinks while TSM invests at 6.65%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
8.79%
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.