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.
-7.99%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 6.69%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-8.87%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 6.90%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-18.98%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 98.06%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.98%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 98.06%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-12.32%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 98.58%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-9.09%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 98.58%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-9.26%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 98.58%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-3.28%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.79%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.35%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-54.95%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 31.58%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-66.02%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 17.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
75.89%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
88.01%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
41.12%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 8.76%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1774.64%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
311.93%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
57.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 124.22%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
6975.22%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
612.67%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 83.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
106.47%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 70.54%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
93.88%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
15.72%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
6.14%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
373.82%
Dividend/share CAGR of 373.82% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
352.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 352.76% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
296.48%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 296.48% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.19%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
11.28%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.60%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
2.17%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.98%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.08%
SG&A declining or stable vs. LSCC's 6.53%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.