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.
0.06%
Revenue growth under 50% of LSCC's 1.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.03%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
6.44%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
6.44%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
3.80%
Positive net income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
5.13%
Positive EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
5.26%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.23%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.50%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
194294.01%
Dividend growth of 194294.01% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-40.03%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 111.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-47.18%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 105.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-5.84%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
28.37%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
70.09%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
61.20%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
49.82%
Below 50% of LSCC's 137.11%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
24.02%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 989.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
112.59%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
11.83%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
213.01%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 82.44%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
175.31%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 35.71%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
2.48%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
13.01%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
37.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 37.38% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
40.20%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.20% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.49%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.49% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.94%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
9.93%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.53%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.79%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
84.64%
Debt growth of 84.64% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-5.12%
Our R&D shrinks while LSCC invests at 4.11%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.17%
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.