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.
8.44%
Positive revenue growth while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
8.64%
Positive gross profit growth while TSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-37.10%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.10%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-46.12%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-45.83%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-46.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.08%
Share change of 0.08% while TSM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.31%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.08%
Dividend reduction while TSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-42.93%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-50.36%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
780.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 283.08%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
304.32%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 105.14%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
261.71%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 63.77%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
18577.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 423.58%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
480.03%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 139.70%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
132.93%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 89.76%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
2531.36%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 422.94% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
201.56%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 130.55%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
297.88%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 76.94%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
503.38%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 301.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
305.59%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 91.69%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
162.79%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 83.65%. 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.
15.24%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.24% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-0.12%
Negative near-term dividend growth while TSM invests at 10.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
16.95%
Our AR growth while TSM is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
21.42%
We show growth while TSM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.32%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 1.63%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
-1.18%
We have a declining book value while TSM shows 4.47%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.10%
We have some new debt while TSM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
10.37%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.15%
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.