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.
2.34%
Revenue growth of 2.34% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a small edge can widen further.
1.44%
Gross profit growth of 1.44% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal improvements could expand further.
10.06%
EBIT growth of 10.06% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can be scaled further.
9.27%
Operating income growth of 9.27% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this modest edge can become significant.
-7.68%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-3.85%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 500.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 411.11%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-5.29%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 102.83%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-4.04%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 143.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
8.69%
Dividend growth of 8.69% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-58.68%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-152.53%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
43.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 182.88%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-12.20%
Negative 5Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 21.23%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
14.04%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 5.10%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
322.80%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
57.02%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 106.95%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
29.13%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 113.36%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2488.56%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 1041.31% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
66.59%
Below 50% of LSCC's 427.62%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
205.05%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of LSCC's 284.40%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
261.53%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 508.94%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
211.41%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 52.12%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
147.24%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
16.57%
Dividend/share CAGR of 16.57% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
38.50%
Dividend/share CAGR of 38.50% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
2.24%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 2.24% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
0.10%
AR growth of 0.10% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
4.81%
Inventory growth of 4.81% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
16.45%
Asset growth of 16.45% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
27.76%
BV/share growth of 27.76% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-2.41%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
18.99%
R&D growth of 18.99% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
-18.83%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.