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.
-0.81%
Negative revenue growth while TSM stands at 0.25%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-0.55%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-1.41%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-1.41%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-3.47%
Negative net income growth while TSM stands at 3.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-5.13%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-2.63%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.33%
Slight or no buybacks while TSM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.16%
Slight or no buyback while TSM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.33%
Dividend reduction while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-37.95%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-42.92%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
184.00%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of TSM's 243.74%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
139.27%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 78.15%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
53.31%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 46.18%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
15658.45%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 303.09%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
230.39%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 87.46%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
210.79%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 41.74%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
515.64%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 284.79% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
511.88%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 115.63%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
74.39%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 55.58%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
322.99%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 218.86%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
157.07%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 51.48%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
105.96%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 20.74%. 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.
90.49%
Dividend/share CAGR of 90.49% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
15.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.23% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
15.09%
AR growth well above TSM's 14.68%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
15.22%
Inventory growth well above TSM's 12.53%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
34.30%
Asset growth above 1.5x TSM's 5.74%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
6.98%
1.25-1.5x TSM's 4.88%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
196.94%
Debt growth far above TSM's 19.84%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-0.41%
Our R&D shrinks while TSM invests at 2.73%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
2.09%
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.