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.
-1.33%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.24%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-53.58%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-55.16%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-50.42%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 207.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-50.00%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 218.18%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-49.02%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 209.09%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.70%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.35%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
31.32%
Dividend growth of 31.32% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-14.67%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-13.44%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
169.55%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 25.07%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
27.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 10.44%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
54.82%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 37.94%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
75.33%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 353.29%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
48.49%
Below 50% of LSCC's 155.65%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-2.06%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 889.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
461.83%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 403.81%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
-42.35%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is 4152.60%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
214.05%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of LSCC's 379.24%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
29.85%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
24.58%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
32.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 51.64%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
655.09%
Dividend/share CAGR of 655.09% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
330.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 330.01% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
54.35%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 54.35% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.40%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-9.01%
Inventory is declining while LSCC stands at 6.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.96%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 10.02%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.03%
Under 50% of LSCC's 12.19%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-3.60%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
20.00%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
14.43%
SG&A growth well above LSCC's 1.86%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.