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.
-16.40%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 12.02%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-29.55%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 14.42%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-62.46%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 27.70%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-62.46%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 17.07%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-63.67%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 37.83%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-65.79%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 27.76%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-64.86%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 1.16%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
2.06%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 8.04%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-12.19%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 15.77%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.02%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-81.83%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 16.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-145.60%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
9.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 327.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-19.03%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 144.17%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
1.93%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 60.80%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
72.96%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 1136.42%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
241.61%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 352.21%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
333.18%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 65.01%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
403.33%
Below 50% of MCHP's 967.02%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
20.89%
Below 50% of MCHP's 265.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
1743.73%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 134.18%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
305.24%
Below 50% of MCHP's 957.44%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
163.29%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 282.79%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
91.82%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 97.15%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
5.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 5.40% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-0.94%
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.
-1.13%
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.
-11.62%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 6.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-4.30%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-2.70%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 9.77%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.20%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-6.60%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.13%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 18.71%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-13.22%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 6.79%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.