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.
-9.23%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-17.32%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
17.79%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
17.79%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
40.61%
Positive net income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
36.36%
Positive EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
36.36%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-6.67%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-6.67%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
7.15%
Dividend growth of 7.15% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-43.00%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 104.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-90.98%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 61.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-22.52%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 97.23%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-30.24%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-18.27%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 3.60%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
23879.66%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
98.23%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-44.59%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
26.28%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
27.72%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-166.64%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
283.66%
Below 50% of LSCC's 641.52%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
154.84%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 109.73%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
78.94%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 57.26%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
-68.64%
Cut dividends over 10 years while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
1.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.81% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
1.65%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 1.65% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.03%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-16.82%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-8.73%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.32%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
1.53%
Debt growth of 1.53% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-13.11%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-22.00%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.