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.
-2.70%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 3.36%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-0.29%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 5.24%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
4.57%
EBIT growth below 50% of LSCC's 28.18%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
-1.29%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 28.18%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
17.55%
Net income growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 30.15%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
19.84%
EPS growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 33.33%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
19.35%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 33.33%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-1.61%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.70%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.54%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
102.12%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
130.43%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
22.18%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 12.29%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
13.14%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-4.83%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
303.61%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
136.80%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 188.76%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
103.54%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 259.46%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
136.66%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
123.84%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 125.90%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
41.81%
Below 50% of LSCC's 171.65%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
3.34%
Below 50% of LSCC's 9.73%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-15.44%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-22.54%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while LSCC is at 23.53%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
638.34%
Dividend/share CAGR of 638.34% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
162.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 162.46% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
79.33%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 79.33% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-10.64%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSCC shows 27.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
6.64%
Inventory growth well above LSCC's 10.48%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.94%
Asset growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 1.78%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
0.45%
Under 50% of LSCC's 5.70%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
3.76%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.53%
R&D dropping or stable vs. LSCC's 3.53%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-3.84%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 8.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.