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
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.
9.86%
Positive revenue growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
0.99%
Positive gross profit growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
3232.57%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
3232.57%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-8.90%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-2.50%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-10.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-18.38%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
16.37%
Diluted share count expanding well above LSCC's 0.13%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-9.44%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
36.22%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
88.24%
FCF growth above 1.5x LSCC's 40.00%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
106.37%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 286.88%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
57.31%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 286.88%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
53.45%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 81.75%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-22.10%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
440.05%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 440.05% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
56.48%
Net income/share CAGR of 56.48% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
370.04%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 133.36%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
70.39%
Equity/share CAGR of 70.39% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
50.67%
Equity/share CAGR of 50.67% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
11.63%
Below 50% of LSCC's 77.03%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-29.09%
Cut dividends over 10 years while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
31.31%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.31% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-15.96%
Negative near-term dividend growth while LSCC invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
3.13%
Our AR growth while LSCC is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-7.95%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.04%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
23.65%
BV/share growth above 1.5x LSCC's 4.65%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-1.95%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.65%
We expand SG&A while LSCC cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.