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 / 6.54M (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.
-51.02%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 4.94%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-46.54%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 4.55%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-9.60%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 8.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-55.20%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 8.15%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
80.95%
Net income growth above 1.5x LSCC's 7.62%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
81.13%
EPS growth above 1.5x LSCC's 8.33%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
81.13%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x LSCC's 8.33%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.19%
Share reduction more than 1.5x LSCC's 1.45%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.19%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x LSCC's 1.45%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-3.21%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
316.99%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
184.15%
FCF growth of 184.15% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest improvements in free cash can accelerate further.
-28.67%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 455.53%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-39.49%
Negative 5Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 116.86%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-62.42%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 43.59%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
64.38%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
39.55%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 25.26%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-185.06%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
70.38%
Below 50% of LSCC's 200.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-115.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC is 78.42%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
91.70%
Equity/share CAGR of 91.70% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
88.43%
Below 50% of LSCC's 254.26%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
33.93%
Below 50% of LSCC's 133.19%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.01% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
19.89%
Dividend/share CAGR of 19.89% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
42.45%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 42.45% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-17.25%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSCC shows 12.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-29.91%
Inventory is declining while LSCC stands at 1.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.06%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 5.27%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.62%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 4.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
6.74%
Debt growth of 6.74% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-55.80%
Our R&D shrinks while LSCC invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-10.69%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 3.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.