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.
-3.35%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 16.34%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.35%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 3.32%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-9.39%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-9.39%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
0.85%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-3.57%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-3.57%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-4.27%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 1.63%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-4.27%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
1.64%
Dividend growth of 1.64% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
133.53%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
2372.73%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-12.84%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 341.72%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
44.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 151.19%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
27.18%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 96.62%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
90.99%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
16.19%
Positive OCF/share growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
160.94%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-16.62%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is at 163.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-293.74%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 33.44%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-187.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 30.80%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
419.26%
Below 50% of MCHP's 846.44%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
175.56%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 278.83%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
158.15%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 128.88%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
28.19%
Dividend/share CAGR of 28.19% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
6.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.92% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
54.74%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 54.74% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-17.32%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-16.56%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 24.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.51%
Asset growth well under 50% of MCHP's 9.58%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
7.46%
Under 50% of MCHP's 17.43%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.19%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.70%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 56.17%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-3.53%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 42.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.