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.
-0.35%
Negative revenue growth while ON stands at 13.93%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.52%
Gross profit growth under 50% of ON's 30.90%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-16.03%
Negative EBIT growth while ON is at 229.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-5.08%
Negative operating income growth while ON is at 229.26%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-4.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-4.81%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.90%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.20%
Share reduction more than 1.5x ON's 0.60%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.10%
Slight or no buyback while ON is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.00%
Dividend reduction while ON stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-42.68%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-47.69%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
54.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 164.77%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
24.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 108.03%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
23.53%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 113.33%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
107.34%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of ON's 127.87%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
102.79%
Below 50% of ON's 228.57%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
86.39%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 192.03%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
179.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
330.89%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 198.91%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
121.75%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 47.28%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
36.24%
Below 50% of ON's 966.84%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
10.06%
Below 50% of ON's 41.20%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
8.51%
Below 50% of ON's 37.56%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1145.59%
Stable or rising dividend while ON is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
193.66%
Dividend/share CAGR of 193.66% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
66.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 66.64% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.52%
AR growth well above ON's 7.68%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
2.96%
We show growth while ON is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.76%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.38%
Under 50% of ON's 7.66%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-6.95%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
7.58%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. ON's 0.14%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
6.81%
We expand SG&A while ON cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.