PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
7.23%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 169.75%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
3.49%
Less D&A growth vs. MCHP's 27.89%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
675.00%
Some yoy growth while MCHP is negative at -282.11%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
9.84%
SBC growth while MCHP is negative at -5.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
139.52%
Less working capital growth vs. MCHP's 424.31%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
109.01%
AR growth is negative or stable vs. MCHP's 318.48%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd would confirm it doesn't hamper sales volume.
-39.53%
Negative yoy inventory while MCHP is 112.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
61.19%
A yoy AP increase while MCHP is negative at -1518.18%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
154.92%
Growth well above MCHP's 84.49%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-320.00%
Negative yoy while MCHP is 5.60%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
62.24%
Operating cash flow growth similar to MCHP's 61.21%. Walter Schloss would see parallel improvements or market conditions in cash generation.
-13.15%
Negative yoy CapEx while MCHP is 19.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-60.40%
Negative yoy purchasing while MCHP stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-87.37%
Both yoy lines are negative, with MCHP at -99.36%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
-1890.91%
We reduce yoy other investing while MCHP is 12.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-121.99%
We reduce yoy invests while MCHP stands at 98.96%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
100.00%
Debt repayment similar to MCHP's 92.00%. Walter Schloss sees parallel liability management or similar free cash flow availability.
-3.31%
Negative yoy issuance while MCHP is 113.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
25.09%
Buyback growth of 25.09% while MCHP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.