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.
-8.74%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 2.18%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-1.10%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
3.79%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
8.77%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-11.07%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-11.54%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-15.38%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.62%
Share count expansion well above LSCC's 0.55%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.04%
Slight or no buyback while LSCC is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.42%
Dividend growth of 0.42% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-53.76%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-57.70%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
183.96%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 12.90%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
23.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 19.75%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
66.90%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 61.61%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
152.15%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
2.25%
Below 50% of LSCC's 76.59%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
99.54%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1259.23%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 72.08% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-35.21%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
1638.85%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
55.33%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
23.79%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
34.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 50.95%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
776.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 776.07% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
324.16%
Dividend/share CAGR of 324.16% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
54.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 54.27% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.34%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSCC shows 42.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
3.64%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.38%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.47%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-5.49%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.38%
R&D dropping or stable vs. LSCC's 19.03%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
4.05%
SG&A growth well above LSCC's 4.68%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.