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.
-1.49%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.01%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-1.42%
Negative EBIT growth while ON is at 17.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
0.44%
Operating income growth under 50% of ON's 17.66%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-4.70%
Negative net income growth while ON stands at 32.94%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.35%
Negative EPS growth while ON is at 37.28%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.35%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ON is at 38.15%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.46%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.54%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.15%
Dividend growth of 0.15% while ON is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-61.47%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-64.74%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
62.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 19.46%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
68.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to ON's 75.02%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-5.06%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
88.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 19.00%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
117.10%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of ON's 145.09%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
-3.34%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
112.73%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of ON's 160.98%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
3278.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 254.31%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-21.06%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
40.88%
Below 50% of ON's 269.57%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
36.00%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of ON's 70.28%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
8.43%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 1.57%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
1308.17%
Stable or rising dividend while ON is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
171.86%
Dividend/share CAGR of 171.86% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
129.32%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 129.32% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.64%
AR growth well above ON's 8.79%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-0.98%
Inventory is declining while ON stands at 0.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.02%
Negative asset growth while ON invests at 0.91%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.28%
We have a declining book value while ON shows 3.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
9.58%
We have some new debt while ON reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.78%
We increase R&D while ON cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.90%
SG&A growth well above ON's 4.79%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.