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.
-2.62%
Negative revenue growth while TSM stands at 10.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.50%
Negative gross profit growth while TSM is at 14.80%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-10.66%
Negative EBIT growth while TSM is at 18.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-10.66%
Negative operating income growth while TSM is at 18.73%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-11.50%
Negative net income growth while TSM stands at 8.75%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-11.76%
Negative EPS growth while TSM is at 8.44%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-12.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TSM is at 8.44%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.17%
Share change of 0.17% while TSM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.16%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.16%
Dividend reduction while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-36.82%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-40.92%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
220.12%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to TSM's 226.62%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
208.17%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 31.71%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
141.41%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 8.68%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
931.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 382.85%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
812.65%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 44.05%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
399.22%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 10.39%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
933.08%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 174.67% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
1000.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 11.83%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
3674.18%
Positive short-term CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
202.21%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 260.20%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
103.28%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 77.21%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
87.30%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 29.87%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
102.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 102.46% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
53.03%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 53.03% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
36.23%
AR growth well above TSM's 8.80%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
36.76%
We show growth while TSM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
12.41%
Asset growth above 1.5x TSM's 2.37%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
13.78%
Positive BV/share change while TSM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.05%
Debt shrinking faster vs. TSM's 0.13%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
7.20%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TSM's 4.78%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.60%
SG&A growth well above TSM's 3.05%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.