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.
-10.20%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-13.82%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-14.40%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-16.11%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-19.40%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.46%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.22%
Slight or no buybacks while LSCC is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.22%
Slight or no buyback while LSCC is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.05%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-47.14%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-129.77%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
45.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 23.42%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
5.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 36.79%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-13.52%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 20.74%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
161.49%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 761.89%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-5.20%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is at 29.24%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-44.30%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
169.54%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 4.57% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-6.31%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is 90.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-36.13%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
89.97%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 42.85%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
105.71%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 131.36%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
69.26%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 72.97%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
332.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 332.40% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
68.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.60% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
27.51%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 27.51% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-6.49%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
2.10%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
7.84%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.29%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
20.36%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.91%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. LSCC's 2.68%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.88%
SG&A growth well above LSCC's 6.92%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.