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.
-10.32%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 10.54%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-13.87%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 10.35%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-72.60%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 11.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-51.78%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 11.73%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-53.37%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 11.30%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-49.18%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 11.33%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-49.18%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 11.33%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.03%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 0.17%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.23%
Diluted share count expanding well above MCHP's 0.17%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
0.66%
Dividend growth of 0.66% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
329.17%
OCF growth above 1.5x MCHP's 5.08%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
25.90%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
53.79%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MCHP's 56.14%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
17.67%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 56.14%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-2.29%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 56.14%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
582.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 57.46%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-38.49%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 57.46%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
392.80%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 150.00% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
140.03%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 150.00%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
-41.82%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 150.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
80.63%
Below 50% of MCHP's 171.32%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
71.68%
Below 50% of MCHP's 171.32%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
104.00%
Dividend/share CAGR of 104.00% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-78.68%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
15.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.10% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-3.94%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 9.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
0.35%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 9.93%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.30%
Asset growth well under 50% of MCHP's 9.93%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.11%
Under 50% of MCHP's 9.01%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
14.36%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.29%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 6.35%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.26%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MCHP's 10.91%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.