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.
13.08%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 9.41%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
21.62%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 9.24%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
67.84%
EBIT growth above 1.5x LSCC's 10.47%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
67.84%
Operating income growth above 1.5x LSCC's 10.47%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
93.02%
Net income growth above 1.5x LSCC's 10.94%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
88.89%
Positive EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
77.78%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.42%
Share count expansion well above LSCC's 0.83%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.65%
Slight or no buyback while LSCC is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
2.70%
Dividend growth of 2.70% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
107.56%
OCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 221.98%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
304.55%
FCF growth above 1.5x LSCC's 193.00%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
50.60%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 665.22%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
12.73%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 121.38%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-2.10%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 50.20%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
273.52%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to LSCC's 265.23%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
99.32%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 56.22%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
308.53%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 308.53% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
184.44%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 209.20%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
29.95%
Below 50% of LSCC's 89.85%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
87.76%
Below 50% of LSCC's 254.86%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
60.15%
Below 50% of LSCC's 131.00%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
91.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 91.48% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
8.57%
Dividend/share CAGR of 8.57% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
86.41%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 86.41% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
4.12%
AR growth of 4.12% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
11.16%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.34%
Asset growth well under 50% of LSCC's 4.88%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.97%
Similar to LSCC's 4.57%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
-14.52%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
17.15%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. LSCC's 8.33%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.67%
SG&A declining or stable vs. LSCC's 8.89%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.