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.
-0.42%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-0.96%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.65%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 2.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.38%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 1.85%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
21.82%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.66%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
14.29%
EPS growth of 14.29% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
15.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 15.00% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
4.86%
Share count expansion well above MCHP's 4.17%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
5.55%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-7.44%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
71.52%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
221.43%
FCF growth above 1.5x MCHP's 18.24%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
2.56%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 158.96%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-18.47%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 158.96%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-10.52%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 24.67%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
17.47%
Below 50% of MCHP's 91.40%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
212.82%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 53.70%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
309.18%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 199.23% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
90.17%
Below 50% of MCHP's 199.23%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
346.95%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 199.23%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
112.72%
Below 50% of MCHP's 333.35%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
143.50%
Below 50% of MCHP's 333.35%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
73.87%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 73.30%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
74.53%
Dividend/share CAGR of 74.53% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
31.98%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.98% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-9.70%
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.
16.07%
Our AR growth while MCHP is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
9.29%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 1.08%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
19.47%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
12.42%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
16.35%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-4.11%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
10.71%
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.