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.
6.10%
Revenue growth above 1.5x LSCC's 3.06%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
6.17%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.96%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
15.50%
EBIT growth 50-75% of LSCC's 30.65%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
15.25%
Operating income growth under 50% of LSCC's 30.65%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
14.66%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 30.10%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
16.67%
EPS growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 30.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
16.92%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 30.00%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-1.40%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.52%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.30%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
71.83%
Similar OCF growth to LSCC's 66.09%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
82.73%
FCF growth above 1.5x LSCC's 47.74%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
52.13%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 98.29%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
6.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 41.74%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
12.10%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 53.61%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
48.23%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
24.14%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
29.91%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
101.43%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
7.87%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
12.80%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
33.75%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
16.21%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 10.85%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
-3.10%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
2216987.49%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2216987.49% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
182.59%
Dividend/share CAGR of 182.59% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
98.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 98.80% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
3.28%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 11.02%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-6.05%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-5.66%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.92%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-15.40%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.02%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-1.25%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-7.66%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.