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.
5.99%
Revenue growth under 50% of LSCC's 40.19%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
10.72%
Gross profit growth under 50% of LSCC's 71.52%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
8.22%
EBIT growth below 50% of LSCC's 43.18%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
8.22%
Operating income growth under 50% of LSCC's 43.18%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-28.46%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 51.58%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.55%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 51.61%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-33.13%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.70%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-34.35%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.70%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
53.69%
Dividend growth of 53.69% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-63.17%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 1158.57%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-101.01%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 466.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
0.94%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 27.28%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
32.83%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
18.57%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-19.88%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 56.51%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
67.07%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
237.16%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
130.60%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
32.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
62.90%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
309.80%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 205.91%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
66.92%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 1.31%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
-5.11%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
83.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 83.26% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
3.43%
Dividend/share CAGR of 3.43% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
2.09%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 2.09% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
15.64%
Our AR growth while LSCC is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
16.67%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.77%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
52.33%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.36%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
10.27%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
14.94%
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.