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.
-2.88%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-3.46%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-155.87%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-155.87%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-116.65%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-116.07%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-116.82%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.87%
Share count expansion well above LSCC's 0.34%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-0.32%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
5.33%
Dividend growth of 5.33% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-13.35%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 1.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-23.08%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
27.65%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 534.21%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
12.23%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 60.05%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-17.00%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 32.16%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
23.67%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
4.59%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-398.64%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-439.94%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is 116.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-244.17%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC is 58.76%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
176.53%
Equity/share CAGR of 176.53% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
178.97%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 235.22%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
85.07%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 127.54%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
93.86%
Dividend/share CAGR of 93.86% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
30.11%
Dividend/share CAGR of 30.11% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
40.58%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 40.58% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-3.45%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSCC shows 6.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-2.11%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-10.15%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 3.75%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-7.23%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 3.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-16.54%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
169.45%
R&D growth of 169.45% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
16.62%
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.