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.
3.98%
Positive revenue growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-2.45%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-29.68%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-29.68%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
97.89%
Positive net income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
120.00%
Positive EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
120.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-10.05%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-10.05%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-7.61%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
45.99%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
40.95%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-16.58%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 47.07%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-18.69%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-7.31%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
28.80%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-6.59%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is at 60.68%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
4.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 14.92%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
131.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-90.07%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-54.01%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
290.57%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 489.80%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
58.71%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 65.73%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
37.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 47.89%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
10.87%
Dividend/share CAGR of 10.87% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
2.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2.63% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
8.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 8.23% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-2.08%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
0.37%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.60%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
8.39%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.24%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
2.72%
R&D dropping or stable vs. LSCC's 28.93%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
4.75%
We expand SG&A while LSCC cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.