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.
-10.89%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 2.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.65%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 2.81%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-17.85%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 10.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.75%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 10.68%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-14.51%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 11.98%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-13.94%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 11.76%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-13.77%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 12.12%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.77%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.76%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
7.68%
Dividend growth of 7.68% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-26.17%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 28.28%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-45.60%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 20.05%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
92.58%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 125.90%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
35.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 59.90%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
43.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 71.19%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
131.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 1335.45%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
15.09%
Below 50% of LSCC's 2463.99%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
19.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 103.32%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
812.98%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 711.90%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
520.08%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 723.06%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
88.83%
Below 50% of LSCC's 261.94%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
63.37%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 15.23%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
53.31%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 93.73%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
68.54%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 44.98%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
487.06%
Dividend/share CAGR of 487.06% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
99.82%
Dividend/share CAGR of 99.82% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
37.51%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 37.51% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-7.11%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
14.68%
Inventory growth well above LSCC's 17.47%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
4.41%
Asset growth at 75-90% of LSCC's 5.24%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
1.26%
Under 50% of LSCC's 10.42%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
14.39%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.70%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.46%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 1.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.