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.
10.36%
Revenue growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.78%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
17.05%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 1.55%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
41.52%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
42.32%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
40.25%
Positive net income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
43.18%
EPS growth of 43.18% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
40.91%
Diluted EPS growth of 40.91% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-0.93%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 1.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.91%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 1.70%. 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.
67.75%
OCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 629.48%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
80.52%
FCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 3598.02%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
67.30%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 55.94%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
58.50%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 107.52%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
2.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 18.58%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
152.27%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 249.95%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
64.60%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
32.57%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 27.25%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
155.09%
Similar net income/share CAGR to LSCC's 170.50%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
210.77%
Below 50% of LSCC's 524.23%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
9.70%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
38.59%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
34.39%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 65.92%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
3.61%
Below 50% of LSCC's 23.93%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1337.84%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1337.84% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
174.90%
Dividend/share CAGR of 174.90% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
132.42%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 132.42% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.69%
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.
1.75%
Inventory growth well above LSCC's 1.87%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-5.94%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 5.27%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.53%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 3.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-17.76%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-4.64%
Our R&D shrinks while LSCC invests at 5.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.46%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 0.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.