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.
17.85%
Revenue growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.44%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
17.82%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.85%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
23.29%
EBIT growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.66%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
31.03%
Operating income growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.66%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-1.96%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 18.61%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.65%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 12.50%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-2.03%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 12.50%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.11%
Share reduction more than 1.5x LSCC's 0.55%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.22%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x LSCC's 1.67%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.13%
Dividend growth of 0.13% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-16.10%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 103.63%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-18.43%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 127.69%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
31.77%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 15.51%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
23.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-0.08%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 1.62%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
41.36%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 80.79%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
13.88%
Below 50% of LSCC's 633.64%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-9.71%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 20.13%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
103.37%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
88.52%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 144.00%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
13.44%
Below 50% of LSCC's 126.56%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
7.90%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 7.09%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
-7.15%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-18.37%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while LSCC is at 56.60%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
644.90%
Dividend/share CAGR of 644.90% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
163.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 163.60% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
79.57%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 79.57% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
18.37%
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.
-3.00%
Inventory is declining while LSCC stands at 10.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.37%
Asset growth above 1.5x LSCC's 0.95%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
8.79%
BV/share growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.94%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.01%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
1.85%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.50%
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.