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.
2.24%
Revenue growth under 50% of LSCC's 12.99%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
47.23%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 9.25%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
83.58%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
83.58%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
67.24%
Positive net income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
72.41%
Positive EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
72.41%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
18.75%
Share count expansion well above LSCC's 0.37%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
18.75%
Diluted share count expanding well above LSCC's 0.37%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-13.45%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-62.05%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 166.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-67.65%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 95.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-45.13%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 97.16%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-35.18%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-24.61%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
1782.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 3.58%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-18.33%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is at 120.06%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
14.77%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-148.33%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-123.65%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-112.54%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
216.59%
Below 50% of LSCC's 569.72%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
124.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 90.40%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
49.26%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 45.04%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
-27.60%
Cut dividends over 10 years while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-7.16%
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.
-5.66%
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.
4.26%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 89.33%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.26%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.53%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-16.01%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.24%
Debt growth of 0.24% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
1.57%
R&D dropping or stable vs. LSCC's 161.71%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-11.96%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 8.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.