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.
0.68%
Positive revenue growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
7.37%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x TSM's 0.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
11.18%
EBIT growth above 1.5x TSM's 3.44%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
11.18%
Operating income growth above 1.5x TSM's 3.44%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-30.51%
Negative net income growth while TSM stands at 0.82%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-30.43%
Negative EPS growth while TSM is at 0.80%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-30.43%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TSM is at 0.89%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.33%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.48%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.69%
Dividend reduction while TSM stands at 25.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-19.82%
Negative OCF growth while TSM is at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-14.82%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
198.60%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 236.56%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
85.42%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 39.89%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
50.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 32.78%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
352.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with TSM's 340.58%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
339.12%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 30.14%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
106.14%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 26.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
274.83%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 247.16%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
165.83%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 48.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
77.84%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 33.50%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
273.88%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 217.06%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
114.50%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 49.15%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
104.60%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 15.17%. 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.
91.19%
Dividend/share CAGR of 91.19% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
38.41%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 38.41% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-12.78%
Firm’s AR is declining while TSM shows 4.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-9.46%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
5.48%
Asset growth above 1.5x TSM's 3.47%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
4.22%
Similar to TSM's 3.88%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
28.47%
Debt growth far above TSM's 16.07%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
4.17%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.75%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.