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
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.
-6.37%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 10.82%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-66.16%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 15.09%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
12.50%
EBIT growth below 50% of MCHP's 140.04%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
12.50%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 132.00%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
3.57%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 87.97%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
-9.17%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 70.34%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-9.17%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 70.34%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-3.70%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.70%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
12.88%
Dividend growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 10.17%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if management’s capital return strategy is more aggressive yet sustainable.
-90.30%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 33.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-135.76%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 34.43%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
38.03%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 51.09%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
38.03%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
12.06%
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.
-298.66%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-298.66%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-163.05%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
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.
76.37%
3Y dividend/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 81.65%. Walter Schloss finds parallel short-term dividend strategies for both companies.
-5.93%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 10.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.82%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.20%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.63%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
18.67%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-7.20%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 4.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.