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.
10.84%
Revenue growth above 1.5x LSCC's 1.90%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
16.44%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 1.55%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
26.41%
EBIT growth 75-90% of LSCC's 33.83%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
13.75%
Operating income growth under 50% of LSCC's 33.83%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
0.48%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 13.16%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
2.63%
EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 13.21%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.55%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.36%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-99.94%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
83.07%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
86.67%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-2.77%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
20.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
68.07%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
175.37%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
228.76%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
182.00%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
102.53%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-1.52%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
253.22%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 52.14%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
186.13%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 91.45%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
1.13%
Below 50% of LSCC's 9.31%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
12.65%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-99.93%
Cut dividends over 10 years while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-99.92%
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.
-99.93%
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.
0.68%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 1.57%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-3.66%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.44%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.15%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.83%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.90%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
20.35%
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.