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.
11.11%
Revenue growth above 1.5x TSM's 3.45%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
9.33%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x TSM's 2.64%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
30.72%
EBIT growth above 1.5x TSM's 1.71%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
30.72%
Operating income growth above 1.5x TSM's 1.71%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
35.16%
Positive net income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
37.93%
Positive EPS growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
41.82%
Positive diluted EPS growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.87%
Share reduction while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.17%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.02%
Dividend reduction while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
123.95%
OCF growth above 1.5x TSM's 6.37%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
138.47%
Positive FCF growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
116.11%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 244.52%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
36.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 89.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
27.37%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 50.13%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
45077.62%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 221.64%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
53.55%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 84.56%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
-2.23%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM stands at 54.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
507.76%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 218.98% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
61.81%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to TSM's 60.33%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
7.52%
Below 50% of TSM's 52.50%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
244.94%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 190.30%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
74.59%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 114.32%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
17.27%
Below 50% of TSM's 70.57%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
19.97%
Our AR growth while TSM is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
5.33%
We show growth while TSM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.69%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.47%
We have a declining book value while TSM shows 7.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.44%
Debt shrinking faster vs. TSM's 8.31%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
0.88%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.90%
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.