vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Monolithic Power Systems (MPWR) and TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO LTD (TSM), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO LTD is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($88.3B vs $751.2M, roughly 117.5× Monolithic Power Systems). TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO LTD runs the higher net margin — 22.9% vs 40.0%, a 17.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO LTD posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (25.0% vs 20.8%). TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO LTD produced more free cash flow last quarter ($26.5B vs $63.9M).
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. is an American, publicly traded company headquartered in Kirkland, Washington. It operates in more than 15 locations worldwide.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is the world's largest dedicated independent semiconductor foundry, headquartered in Hsinchu, Taiwan. It manufactures advanced logic chips on contract for fabless customers including Apple, NVIDIA, AMD, Qualcomm, and Broadcom, and leads the industry in leading-edge process nodes (3nm/5nm/7nm).
MPWR vs TSM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2024
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $751.2M | $88.3B |
| Net Profit | $171.7M | $35.3B |
| Gross Margin | 55.2% | 56.1% |
| Operating Margin | 26.6% | 45.7% |
| Net Margin | 22.9% | 40.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 20.8% | 25.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -86.3% | 27.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $3.50 | $1.36 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $751.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $737.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $664.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $637.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $621.7M | $88.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $620.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $507.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $457.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $171.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $179.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $135.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $135.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $35.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $144.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $100.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $92.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | 55.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 55.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 55.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 55.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 55.4% | 56.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 55.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 55.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | 26.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 26.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 24.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.3% | 45.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | 22.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 21.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 201.8% | 40.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.50 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.74 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.81 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.81 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.71 | $1.36 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.95 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.05 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.89 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.3B | $64.9B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.5B | $130.5B |
| Total Assets | $4.2B | $204.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $862.9M | $64.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3B | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $130.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | — |
| Q4 25 | $4.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.7B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $204.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.6B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.6B | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $104.9M | $55.7B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $63.9M | $26.5B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 8.5% | 30.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 5.5% | 33.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.61× | 1.58× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $666.2M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $104.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $239.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $237.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $256.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $167.7M | $55.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $231.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $141.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $248.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $63.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $196.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $189.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $216.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $102.9M | $26.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $197.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $109.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $232.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | 8.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 26.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 33.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.5% | 30.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 31.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 50.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.4% | 33.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.61× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.33× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.76× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.90× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.13× | 1.58× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.60× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.40× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.68× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
