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 / 6.59M (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.
-3.31%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 2.20%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.07%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 6.16%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-8.06%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 825.35%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-9.04%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 825.35%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-1.78%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 204.03%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.79%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 190.91%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.47%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 1.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.44%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 4.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.16%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-48.39%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-53.02%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
133.94%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 99.46%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
38.70%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
28.08%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
498.85%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 156.84%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
175.85%
Below 50% of LSCC's 566.90%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
116.94%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
9620.45%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 213.53% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
187.69%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
83.48%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of LSCC's 133.27%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
25.60%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-7.65%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-6.64%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
597.21%
Dividend/share CAGR of 597.21% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
156.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 156.46% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
102.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 102.64% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
19.30%
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.
-3.88%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.79%
Asset growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 3.37%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
-3.87%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 7.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
21.41%
Debt growth far above LSCC's 1.62%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-2.75%
Our R&D shrinks while LSCC invests at 1.91%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.