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.
-0.35%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
0.52%
Positive gross profit growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-16.03%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 26.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-5.08%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 26.72%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-4.78%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 10.89%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.81%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 15.32%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.90%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 11.29%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.20%
Share reduction more than 1.5x LSCC's 5.22%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.10%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x LSCC's 0.47%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-0.00%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-42.68%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-47.69%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
54.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 69.48%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
24.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 41.53%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
23.53%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 3.46%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
107.34%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with LSCC's 117.51%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
102.79%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 174.79%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
86.39%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 152.67%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
179.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
330.89%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 8.50%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
121.75%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
36.24%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
10.06%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
8.51%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
1145.59%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1145.59% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
193.66%
Dividend/share CAGR of 193.66% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
66.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 66.64% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.52%
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.
2.96%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.76%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.38%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-6.95%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
7.58%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. LSCC's 4.35%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
6.81%
SG&A growth well above LSCC's 5.10%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.