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.
-2.49%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 0.50%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
13.22%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
597.37%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
634.21%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
215.38%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
233.33%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
233.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.18%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.46%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
3.22%
Dividend growth of 3.22% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
82.20%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
146.94%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
9.50%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 164.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-11.69%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 164.36%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-40.47%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 85.76%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.19%
Below 50% of MCHP's 206.68%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
6.52%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 183.87%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
43.07%
Below 50% of MCHP's 117.26%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
1.45%
Below 50% of MCHP's 117.26%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-45.24%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 35.78%. 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.
137.33%
Below 50% of MCHP's 347.25%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
51.12%
Below 50% of MCHP's 149.72%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
93.58%
Dividend/share CAGR of 93.58% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
33.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 33.51% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
2.52%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 2.52% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-11.07%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-19.26%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
2.61%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 2.05%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
1.34%
Under 50% of MCHP's 8.18%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.15%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-4.90%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 6.71%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-31.95%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.