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.
-25.76%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 10.07%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-23.84%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 10.31%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-64.30%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 12.50%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-51.83%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 12.50%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-43.99%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 6.48%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-38.89%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-38.89%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.06%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 8.75%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.20%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 8.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.09%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-113.53%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 89.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-8871.43%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 176.47%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
86.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 75.08%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
35.01%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 75.08%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
36.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 75.08%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-222.14%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 173.42%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-166.68%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 173.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1100.28%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 191.70% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
350.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 191.70%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
93.82%
Below 50% of MCHP's 191.70%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
53.91%
Below 50% of MCHP's 176.24%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
101.64%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 176.24%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.40% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
40.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 40.10% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-1.06%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 11.08%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
1.41%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 5.22%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.01%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 8.94%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
3.26%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
37.42%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-36.28%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 7.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.