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.
-8.89%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 3.58%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-8.13%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-13.11%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 98.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-12.58%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 98.08%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-73.23%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 83.25%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-72.87%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 82.63%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-73.02%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 83.31%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.30%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.10%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
23.81%
Dividend growth of 23.81% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
12.02%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
10.55%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
46.89%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 74.07%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
42.24%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 41.28%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
21.89%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 13.23%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
88.82%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
100.89%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
61.14%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 240.40%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-36.54%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is at 96.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
47.24%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 1.79%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-55.69%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
44.34%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
6.56%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
5.71%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
516.71%
Dividend/share CAGR of 516.71% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
193.79%
Dividend/share CAGR of 193.79% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
82.37%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 82.37% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-18.91%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
2.57%
Inventory growth well above LSCC's 3.12%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
4.21%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-5.64%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 3.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
13.79%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
2.93%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.73%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 10.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.