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.
1.55%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 2.33%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
-0.04%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 13.90%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-5.71%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 219.30%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-3.85%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 157.12%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-2.16%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-2.27%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-1.54%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.22%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.33%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.06%
Dividend growth of 0.06% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-57.51%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-134.00%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
48.25%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 15.10%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
25.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 20.39%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
-15.86%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
60.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 180558.67%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
2.07%
Below 50% of LSCC's 47.36%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-59.84%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
106.27%
Similar net income/share CAGR to LSCC's 107.99%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
2.74%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-45.67%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
81.59%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 54.48%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
117.02%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 101.27%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
18.72%
Below 50% of LSCC's 67.70%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
299.12%
Dividend/share CAGR of 299.12% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
50.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 50.60% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
18.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 18.13% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
77.72%
AR growth well above LSCC's 4.30%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
3.53%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.93%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.73%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.50%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 6.41%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.30%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. LSCC's 8.42%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.83%
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.