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.
-3.64%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 5.98%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.17%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 3.39%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-13.26%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-12.91%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-20.48%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.48%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.74%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.21%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.19%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.21%
Dividend growth of 0.21% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-52.12%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-57.63%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
72.62%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to LSCC's 67.73%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
16.03%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 24.51%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
10.46%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 24.95%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
89.65%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 99.95%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
1.26%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
48.44%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 99.85%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
159.95%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
17.70%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
170.91%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
41.87%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
24.85%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 45.01%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
2.50%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 1.34%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
1248.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1248.38% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
182.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 182.07% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
99.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 99.80% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
11.88%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 29.51%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
3.36%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. LSCC's 24.07%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-2.12%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 71.94%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.01%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.09%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
8.68%
R&D dropping or stable vs. LSCC's 22.94%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
2.33%
SG&A declining or stable vs. LSCC's 15.23%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.