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.
6.86%
Positive revenue growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
7.84%
Positive gross profit growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
55.61%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
50.63%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
68.30%
Positive net income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
65.22%
Positive EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
72.73%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.26%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.94%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.26%
Dividend growth of 0.26% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
50.33%
OCF growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 70.54%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
52.89%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 39.03%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
157.09%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 16.66%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
22.78%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 16.41%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
50.86%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 47.95%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
190.70%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-5.25%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
34.69%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
682.46%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-7.84%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
90.65%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
63.47%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
22.37%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
34.60%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 46.19%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
643.71%
Dividend/share CAGR of 643.71% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
113.74%
Dividend/share CAGR of 113.74% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
55.92%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 55.92% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
10.22%
AR growth well above LSCC's 14.33%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
1.73%
Inventory growth well above LSCC's 0.74%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-2.44%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.05%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-11.01%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.70%
Our R&D shrinks while LSCC invests at 1.13%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.30%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 8.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.