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.
-2.31%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 9.52%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
2.08%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MCHP's 9.36%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
24.74%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 12.28%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
24.74%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 12.28%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
587.55%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 12.41%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
558.82%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 8.99%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
568.75%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 8.99%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.89%
Share count expansion well above MCHP's 1.45%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.76%
Diluted share count expanding well above MCHP's 1.45%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-3.88%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-9.44%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-26.97%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 225.35%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
41.78%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 118.91%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
2.59%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 118.91%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-7.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 118.91%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
37.89%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 30.38%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
31.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 30.38%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
2355.49%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 140.48% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
2232.04%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 140.48%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
780.74%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 140.48%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
146.09%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 190.64%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
111.23%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 190.64%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
84.04%
Dividend/share CAGR of 84.04% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
8.03%
Dividend/share CAGR of 8.03% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
39.18%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 39.18% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-0.17%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 7.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.85%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
28.62%
Asset growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.55%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
40.37%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MCHP's 6.24%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-5.41%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.79%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 10.21%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-11.65%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 4.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.