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.
-5.68%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
9.32%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
43.39%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 10.02%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
33.50%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 10.02%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
15.24%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 8.38%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
20.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 10.35%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
20.00%
Similar diluted EPS growth to MCHP's 21.26%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
45.37%
Slight or no buybacks while MCHP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
42.90%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-33.23%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-24.69%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-19.83%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 1.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-33.03%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 124.66%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-57.43%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 124.66%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-63.08%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 59.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-37.86%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 22.36%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-46.80%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 8.45%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
12.76%
Below 50% of MCHP's 101.12%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-27.94%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 101.12%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-56.65%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 32.04%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
115.41%
Below 50% of MCHP's 313.51%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
42.97%
Below 50% of MCHP's 313.51%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
6.40%
Below 50% of MCHP's 127.55%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
29.25%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.25% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.57%
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.
-33.25%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MCHP invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-2.35%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
8.42%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 12.85%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.96%
Asset growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.20%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-25.51%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 2.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.07%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 297.57%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-3.44%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
5.47%
We expand SG&A while MCHP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.