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.
2.06%
Revenue growth under 50% of LSCC's 4.29%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
4.38%
Gross profit growth similar to LSCC's 4.14%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
10.11%
EBIT growth 50-75% of LSCC's 15.31%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
9.21%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 15.31%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
7.23%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 15.54%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
6.98%
EPS growth of 6.98% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
7.94%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 20.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.21%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.93%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.31%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 1.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.06%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
62.24%
OCF growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 105.62%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
76.64%
FCF growth 50-75% of LSCC's 142.50%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
101.87%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 90.62%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
27.36%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
20.00%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
336.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 16.53%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
164.88%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 88.60%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
79.90%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 308.52%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
578.69%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 375.10% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
118.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
70.62%
Below 50% of LSCC's 153.95%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
24.55%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 3.37%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-7.32%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-8.78%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
602.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 602.36% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
155.50%
Dividend/share CAGR of 155.50% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
102.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 102.39% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-1.46%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-2.44%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.34%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.17%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 4.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.10%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.26%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.45%
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.