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.
8.08%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of MCHP's 9.04%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
4.16%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MCHP's 17.50%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
2800.34%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 18.06%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
2800.34%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 18.06%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
1.08%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 20.69%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
-15.38%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 20.36%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-15.38%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 20.36%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.25%
Share change of 0.25% while MCHP is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.83%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
4.28%
Dividend growth of 4.28% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
8.56%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
11.00%
FCF growth under 50% of MCHP's 98.39%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
87.72%
10Y CAGR of 87.72% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
34.54%
5Y CAGR of 34.54% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
46.44%
3Y CAGR of 46.44% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
30.37%
OCF/share CAGR of 30.37% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
13.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 13.89% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
473.10%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 473.10% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
370.76%
Net income/share CAGR of 370.76% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
303.98%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 303.98% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
73.62%
Equity/share CAGR of 73.62% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
9.94%
Equity/share CAGR of 9.94% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
43.36%
Equity/share CAGR of 43.36% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
-25.54%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-13.13%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-11.62%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MCHP invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-1.10%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 96.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
1.38%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 13.30%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
2.13%
Asset growth well under 50% of MCHP's 12.57%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
5.88%
50-75% of MCHP's 11.13%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-4.09%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 22.84%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.96%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 8.04%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.