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.
-5.74%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 5.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.15%
Gross profit growth under 50% of LSCC's 5.93%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-20.25%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
2.69%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-16.12%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 17.15%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-17.24%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 20.08%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-14.29%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 20.08%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.33%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.25%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.36%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.25%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.95%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-59.92%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-77.51%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-9.32%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
3.28%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
81.70%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
96.01%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 35.32%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
24.83%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
97.36%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
56.05%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-6.33%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
1308.11%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 58.97%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
217.61%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 123.76%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
1.99%
Below 50% of LSCC's 47.09%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
12.23%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
63.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 63.26% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
17.88%
Dividend/share CAGR of 17.88% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.81% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.88%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-7.69%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-7.64%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-1.58%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.43%
R&D dropping or stable vs. LSCC's 7.30%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-4.97%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 10.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.