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.
-30.68%
Negative revenue growth while TSM stands at 8.26%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-37.17%
Negative gross profit growth while TSM is at 14.19%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-69.57%
Negative EBIT growth while TSM is at 15.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-69.57%
Negative operating income growth while TSM is at 15.16%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-53.90%
Negative net income growth while TSM stands at 14.81%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-54.90%
Negative EPS growth while TSM is at 14.72%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-53.06%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TSM is at 14.62%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.96%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
7.69%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while TSM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
84.39%
OCF growth above 1.5x TSM's 43.18%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
106.23%
Positive FCF growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
304.58%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 237.44%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
79.89%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 42.55%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
39.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 20.98%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
4094.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 220.67%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
109.19%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 32.07%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
55.53%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 9.57%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
438.98%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 247.97% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
260.26%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 64.83%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
142.43%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 18.81%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
244.40%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 219.30%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
95.68%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 57.86%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
85.01%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 18.74%. 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.
89.29%
Below 50% of TSM's 105835661.37%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
42.19%
Below 50% of TSM's 305060835.75%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-35.83%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
11.15%
We show growth while TSM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.67%
Negative asset growth while TSM invests at 6.11%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.40%
We have a declining book value while TSM shows 1.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.10%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 51.52%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.94%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TSM's 6.94%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.10%
SG&A declining or stable vs. TSM's 25.65%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.