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 / 6.59M (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.
-4.30%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-4.22%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 0.02%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
15.97%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
15.09%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-6.77%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 4.06%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.56%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-2.63%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.73%
Slight or no buybacks while LSCC is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
17.08%
Slight or no buyback while LSCC is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
4.95%
Dividend growth of 4.95% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
34.22%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-197.20%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
29.76%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 588.18%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-26.65%
Negative 5Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 153.62%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
12.01%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 130.97%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-2.10%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
7.60%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
24.27%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
953.20%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 676.25%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
90.10%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 84.35%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
299.75%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 58.48%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
302.95%
Below 50% of LSCC's 820.36%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
168.64%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with LSCC's 160.25%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
91.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 87.73%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
21.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 21.42% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-2.02%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-2.13%
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.
-6.69%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
9.89%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. LSCC's 38.83%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-3.38%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.45%
Under 50% of LSCC's 101.44%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-3.74%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-17.26%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-11.48%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 1.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.