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 / 6.59M (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.
-3.16%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 8.02%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.91%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 6.96%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
133.15%
EBIT growth similar to LSCC's 141.36%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
184.17%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 141.36%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
37.12%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 126.34%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
39.13%
EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 132.31%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
39.13%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 132.31%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.54%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.09%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.74%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-66.82%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-72.09%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 127.58%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
98.72%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 17.80%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
5.70%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 25.45%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
0.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 1.27%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
177.32%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-32.68%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-43.52%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
367.16%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 109.69% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-34.45%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is 157.96%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-38.72%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
54.13%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
33.19%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 29.86%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
24.41%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 35.94%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
846.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 846.73% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
109.10%
Dividend/share CAGR of 109.10% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
73.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 73.43% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.37%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 19.25%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-3.24%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.81%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 1.46%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.46%
Under 50% of LSCC's 1.17%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.05%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-1.41%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
6.74%
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.