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.
-9.23%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-17.32%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
17.79%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
17.79%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.15%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
40.61%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
36.36%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
36.36%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-6.67%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-6.67%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
7.15%
Dividend growth of 7.15% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-43.00%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 24.27%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-90.98%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 44.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-22.52%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 320.75%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-30.24%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 102.56%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-18.27%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 59.16%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
23879.66%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 759.29%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
98.23%
Below 50% of MCHP's 590.03%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-44.59%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 180.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
26.28%
Below 50% of MCHP's 553.15%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
27.72%
Below 50% of MCHP's 553.15%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-166.64%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 200.64%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
283.66%
Below 50% of MCHP's 795.59%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
154.84%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 258.14%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
78.94%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 100.24%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
-68.64%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
1.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.81% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
1.65%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 1.65% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.03%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-16.82%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 22.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-8.73%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 8.83%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.32%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 5.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
1.53%
Debt growth of 1.53% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-13.11%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 7.99%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-22.00%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.