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.
15.13%
Positive revenue growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
13.22%
Positive gross profit growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
24.19%
Positive EBIT growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
24.19%
Positive operating income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
14.99%
Positive net income growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
13.64%
Positive EPS growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
15.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.84%
Share change of 0.84% while TSM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-1.25%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
1.58%
Dividend growth of 1.58% while TSM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
150.00%
Positive OCF growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
185.53%
Positive FCF growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
118.59%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 172.61%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
121.41%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 49.59%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
89.07%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 13.52%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
95.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 213.70%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
263.88%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 72.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
584.66%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 16.84%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
209.42%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 151.39%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
407.77%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 39.53%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
325.96%
Positive short-term CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
142.26%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 236.33%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
39.06%
Below 50% of TSM's 99.74%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
29.74%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 39.70%. 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.
65.59%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 65.59% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
24.28%
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.
4.14%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. TSM's 16.21%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.09%
Negative asset growth while TSM invests at 0.21%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.41%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-6.20%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.22%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
7.03%
SG&A growth well above TSM's 3.95%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.