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.
8.81%
Revenue growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.79%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
9.81%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.32%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
15.53%
EBIT growth below 50% of LSCC's 52.29%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
15.39%
Operating income growth under 50% of LSCC's 52.29%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
15.19%
Net income growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 29.94%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
15.71%
EPS growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 29.41%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
14.49%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 29.41%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.32%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.20%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.52%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.06%
Dividend growth of 0.06% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
95.43%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
115.37%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
37.03%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 56.92%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
9.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 21.35%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
18.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 17.80%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
158.94%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 80.20%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
95.19%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
74.36%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 403.86%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-46.89%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
40.42%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
36.42%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
20.58%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
5.27%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-1.05%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
1158.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1158.01% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
193.41%
Dividend/share CAGR of 193.41% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.90%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.90% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
6.23%
AR growth well above LSCC's 0.35%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
3.93%
Inventory growth well above LSCC's 5.02%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.04%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.17%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-12.29%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
5.90%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.95%
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.