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.
-19.11%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-46.33%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-73.29%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-73.29%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-59.46%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-60.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-59.38%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.44%
Share reduction while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.83%
Reduced diluted shares while TSM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.44%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while TSM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-26.63%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-38.91%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
537.09%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 208.44%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
187.74%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 106.18%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
153.80%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 54.80%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
527.38%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 122.28%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
72.42%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 28.88%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
32.48%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TSM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
446.85%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 250.90% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
7.70%
Below 50% of TSM's 151.49%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
16.03%
Below 50% of TSM's 50.47%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
431.45%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 327.48%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
282.19%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 114.02%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
125.30%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 85.36%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
13.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 13.94% while TSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-0.37%
Negative near-term dividend growth while TSM invests at 10.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-2.23%
Firm’s AR is declining while TSM shows 29.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
22.95%
Inventory growth well above TSM's 8.45%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-3.84%
Negative asset growth while TSM invests at 2.05%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-8.98%
We have a declining book value while TSM shows 3.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.06%
We’re deleveraging while TSM stands at 2.83%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
12.73%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. TSM's 6.41%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.