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.
13.15%
Revenue growth similar to TSM's 12.05%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
14.95%
Gross profit growth at 75-90% of TSM's 18.40%. Bill Ackman would demand operational improvements to match competitor gains.
29.79%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 22.44%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
29.79%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 22.44%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
31.23%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 25.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
30.51%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 22.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
31.03%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 22.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
0.32%
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.
-0.32%
Dividend reduction while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-9.34%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-11.66%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
463.61%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 365.22%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
275.12%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 109.94%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
72.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 124.54%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
942.36%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 552.07%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
424.44%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 131.15%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
26.56%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of TSM's 143.78%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1254.35%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 505.04% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
743.56%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 131.36%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
49.99%
Below 50% of TSM's 230.22%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
421.55%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 250.01%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
286.90%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 59.01%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
137.40%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 32.80%. 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.
38.08%
Dividend/share CAGR of 38.08% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
6.16%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 6.16% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
24.50%
AR growth well above TSM's 7.59%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
9.09%
Inventory growth well above TSM's 3.63%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.96%
Similar asset growth to TSM's 7.17%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
10.78%
BV/share growth above 1.5x TSM's 6.95%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.86%
Debt shrinking faster vs. TSM's 5.93%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
0.52%
R&D dropping or stable vs. TSM's 11.82%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.38%
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.