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.
-10.86%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.74%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-24.42%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-24.42%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-22.60%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-26.67%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-20.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
7.05%
Share count expansion well above TSM's 0.00%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-2.88%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.79%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while TSM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-60.89%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-65.97%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
109.76%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 198.49%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
117.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 86.74%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
65.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 11.69%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-15.88%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM stands at 195.44%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
3285.57%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 118.43%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
76.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 3.03%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
250.47%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 222.91%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
772.59%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 126.82%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
250.74%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 13.66%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
167.49%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 219.34%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
48.77%
Below 50% of TSM's 109.58%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
38.98%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to TSM's 42.89%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
65.72%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 65.72% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
18.16%
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.
3.40%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. TSM's 15.34%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-4.38%
Negative asset growth while TSM invests at 2.88%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.59%
We have a declining book value while TSM shows 7.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-21.52%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
4.31%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.11%
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.