205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
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.
6.95%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 10.82%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
6.95%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MCHP's 15.09%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-383.16%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 140.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-383.16%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 132.00%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
90.00%
Net income growth comparable to MCHP's 87.97%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
100.00%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 70.34%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
100.00%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 70.34%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
1.51%
Share count expansion well above MCHP's 0.33%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.51%
Diluted share count expanding well above MCHP's 0.33%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
100.00%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 10.17%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
8.74%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 51.09%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
8.74%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
8.74%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
163.69%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
163.69%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
163.69%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
19.04%
Below 50% of MCHP's 145.07%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
19.04%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 14.52%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
19.04%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 17.81%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.