PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Texas Instruments Incorporated (TXN)
205.980.01 (0.00%)
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.59M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
4.76%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 16.25%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
-8.42%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with MCHP at -0.16%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
202.00%
Some yoy growth while MCHP is negative at -475.11%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
-12.12%
Negative yoy SBC while MCHP is 2.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
51.38%
Slight usage while MCHP is negative at -133.72%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
776.60%
AR growth while MCHP is negative at -169.84%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-29.82%
Negative yoy inventory while MCHP is 5.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
104.17%
AP growth well above MCHP's 121.61%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-85.61%
Negative yoy usage while MCHP is 170.11%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-1175.00%
Negative yoy while MCHP is 504.71%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
1.49%
Some CFO growth while MCHP is negative at -3.42%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-17.99%
Negative yoy CapEx while MCHP is 19.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
17.99%
Less M&A spending yoy vs. MCHP's 56.72%, reducing near-term risk. David Dodd would confirm the firm is not missing out on a strategic deal that competitor might exploit.
-129.63%
Negative yoy purchasing while MCHP stands at 36.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-55.41%
We reduce yoy sales while MCHP is 0.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
56.06%
Growth well above MCHP's 19.37%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-273.52%
We reduce yoy invests while MCHP stands at 99.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-33.33%
Both yoy lines negative, with MCHP at -358.39%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting net new borrowings or weaker paydowns across the niche.
214.29%
Issuance growth of 214.29% while MCHP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild dilution that must be justified by expansions or acquisitions vs. competitor’s stable share base.
20.63%
Buyback growth below 50% of MCHP's 100.00%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.