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.
-4.78%
Negative revenue growth while ON stands at 1.59%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.78%
Negative gross profit growth while ON is at 87.85%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
135.97%
EBIT growth similar to ON's 138.01%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
135.97%
Operating income growth similar to ON's 133.71%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
180.83%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x ON's 135.03%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
200.00%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x ON's 135.65%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
200.00%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x ON's 135.65%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-50.00%
Dividend reduction while ON stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
9.30%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 71.75%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
9.30%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 19.72%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
9.30%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ON 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.
665.49%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 245.86% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
665.49%
Below 50% of ON's 12132.26%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
665.49%
Positive short-term CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
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.
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.