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.
6.47%
Revenue growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.90%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
13.31%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 1.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
37.52%
EBIT growth above 1.5x LSCC's 17.32%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
-6.84%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 17.32%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-4.70%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 75.48%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-5.08%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 75.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-3.45%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 75.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.63%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.28%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.54%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.31%
Dividend growth of 0.31% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
70.77%
OCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 1470.08%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
77.99%
FCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 674.03%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
100.90%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 64.56%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
13.95%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 50.39%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-6.30%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 14.16%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
254.02%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 13468.75%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
30.17%
Below 50% of LSCC's 753.44%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-5.66%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 184.50%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
120.73%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 138.94%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
32.93%
Below 50% of LSCC's 225.99%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-20.90%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
51.69%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
30.26%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 40.78%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
19.84%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 26.06%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
1205.79%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1205.79% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
179.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 179.73% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
132.68%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 132.68% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.21%
Our AR growth while LSCC is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
0.35%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.79%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 4.30%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.48%
Under 50% of LSCC's 3.12%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.08%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.40%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-1.27%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.