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.
2.31%
Revenue growth under 50% of LSCC's 7.17%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
3.64%
Gross profit growth under 50% of LSCC's 8.79%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
12.92%
EBIT growth similar to LSCC's 13.18%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
10.33%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of LSCC's 13.18%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
34.92%
Net income growth above 1.5x LSCC's 12.38%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
33.33%
EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 333.33%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
33.33%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 333.33%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-29.56%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-27.87%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
41.96%
Dividend growth of 41.96% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-48.82%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 10.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-112.03%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 5.31%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
3.06%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 478.33%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-24.01%
Negative 5Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 39.59%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-27.73%
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.
-52.04%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is at 134.29%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
385.77%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 292.98%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
143.28%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 143.28% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
73.69%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 64.56%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
48.33%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
145.52%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 201.96%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
49.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 53.15%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
83.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 83.48% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
77.18%
Dividend/share CAGR of 77.18% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-2.22%
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.
7.14%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 28.65%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
3.72%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.20%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 5.34%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
45.27%
BV/share growth above 1.5x LSCC's 4.38%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-3.48%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
10.68%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. LSCC's 4.71%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-1.52%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 2.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.