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.
-3.35%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.35%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-9.39%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-9.39%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
0.85%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 88.03%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
-3.57%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 88.54%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-3.57%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 88.54%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-4.27%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-4.27%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
1.64%
Dividend growth of 1.64% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
133.53%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
2372.73%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-12.84%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 84.14%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
44.05%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
27.18%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
90.99%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
16.19%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
160.94%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-16.62%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-293.74%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-187.06%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
419.26%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 622.30%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
175.56%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 103.89%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
158.15%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 55.29%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
28.19%
Dividend/share CAGR of 28.19% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
6.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.92% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
54.74%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 54.74% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-17.32%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSCC shows 1.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-16.56%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.51%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
7.46%
BV/share growth above 1.5x LSCC's 1.40%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-1.19%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.70%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-3.53%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.