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.
-11.16%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-14.27%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-19.78%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.40%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-24.91%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 3.31%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-25.00%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-24.83%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.21%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.52%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.21%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
16.89%
Dividend growth of 16.89% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-11.95%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 114.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-13.67%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 135.59%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
48.40%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 56.79%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
14.96%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 5.77%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
4.75%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
133.26%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
54.69%
Below 50% of LSCC's 4192.67%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
35.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 51.87%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
117.46%
Similar net income/share CAGR to LSCC's 114.23%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
45.49%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
9.10%
Below 50% of LSCC's 248.34%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
21.96%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 11.44%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-3.83%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-9.21%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while LSCC is at 4.91%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
651.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 651.36% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
165.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 165.01% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
79.91%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 79.91% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-19.97%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSCC shows 36.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-1.91%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
0.14%
Asset growth well under 50% of LSCC's 3.14%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.66%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 5.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.20%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.85%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.26%
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.