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.
-0.91%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
6.12%
Positive gross profit growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-72.73%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-72.73%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
372.73%
Positive net income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
200.00%
Positive EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
200.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.25%
Share count expansion well above LSCC's 0.38%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.48%
Slight or no buyback while LSCC is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.25%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
786.67%
OCF growth above 1.5x LSCC's 81.67%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
125.30%
FCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 716.67%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
11.86%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 484.87%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-14.43%
Negative 5Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 10.99%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-35.92%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
11.67%
Below 50% of LSCC's 109.83%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-24.52%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 15.50%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-54.44%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-61.41%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is 32.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-82.09%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
131.78%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 226.92%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
60.37%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 112.41%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
87.55%
Dividend/share CAGR of 87.55% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
14.29%
Dividend/share CAGR of 14.29% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
37.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 37.39% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.10%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-9.02%
Inventory is declining while LSCC stands at 1.77%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.16%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 0.86%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.55%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 2.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.23%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-6.71%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
25.55%
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.