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.
2.02%
Revenue growth under 50% of TSM's 14.41%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
20.65%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x TSM's 15.10%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
108.99%
EBIT growth above 1.5x TSM's 14.13%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
108.99%
Operating income growth above 1.5x TSM's 14.13%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
107.94%
Net income growth above 1.5x TSM's 19.41%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
111.11%
EPS growth above 1.5x TSM's 13.14%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
111.11%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x TSM's 13.10%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.77%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.88%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.24%
Dividend reduction while TSM stands at 9.14%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
473.72%
OCF growth above 1.5x TSM's 34.00%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
1360.87%
FCF growth above 1.5x TSM's 230.29%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
450.36%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 329.12%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
104.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to TSM's 115.97%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
93.61%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 73.08%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
402.03%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 284.32%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
62.92%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of TSM's 108.59%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
52.52%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to TSM's 52.44%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
718.27%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 520.19%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
24.42%
Below 50% of TSM's 152.11%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
47.88%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of TSM's 85.86%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
360.89%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x TSM's 314.97%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
191.02%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TSM's 108.41%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
79.92%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to TSM's 87.09%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
110.52%
Below 50% of TSM's 1111804762.34%. Michael Burry might see weaker long-term distribution growth, raising questions about the firm's capital allocation.
5.94%
Below 50% of TSM's 176890064.82%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
-0.65%
Negative near-term dividend growth while TSM invests at 20.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-22.03%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
15.83%
We show growth while TSM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.71%
Asset growth above 1.5x TSM's 0.87%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
4.32%
1.25-1.5x TSM's 3.32%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
8.26%
We have some new debt while TSM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.36%
We increase R&D while TSM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.95%
We cut SG&A while TSM invests at 131.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.