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.
-10.60%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.98%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-37.94%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.94%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-34.92%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-34.25%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-34.25%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.72%
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.
0.82%
Diluted share count expanding well above TSM's 0.01%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
67.96%
OCF growth above 1.5x TSM's 11.46%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
77.88%
FCF growth under 50% of TSM's 1606.24%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
66.43%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 181.91%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
1.43%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 46.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
74.20%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 39.68%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
650.77%
OCF/share CAGR of 650.77% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
66.63%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 50.58%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
1918.95%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 34.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
38.55%
Below 50% of TSM's 570.48%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-33.64%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TSM is 26.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
169.09%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 24.70%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
371.99%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 110.34%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
93.18%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 60.34%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
52.23%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 43.14%. 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.
-9.46%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
6.48%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. TSM's 13.78%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
9.12%
Similar asset growth to TSM's 8.69%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
3.59%
50-75% of TSM's 7.17%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-2.32%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 8.68%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.04%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.23%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.