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.
2.24%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
47.23%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
83.58%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 29.26%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
83.58%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 29.26%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
67.24%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 4.33%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
72.41%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 7.18%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
72.41%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.76%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
18.75%
Share change of 18.75% while MCHP is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
18.75%
Diluted share count expanding well above MCHP's 4.71%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-13.45%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-62.05%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 188.45%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-67.65%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 105.84%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-45.13%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 266.43%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-35.18%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 74.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-24.61%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 24.48%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
1782.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 116.86%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-18.33%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 0.47%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
14.77%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-148.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is at 436.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-123.65%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 202.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-112.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 51.98%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
216.59%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1391.37%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
124.69%
Below 50% of MCHP's 305.10%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
49.26%
Below 50% of MCHP's 165.88%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-27.60%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-7.16%
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.
-5.66%
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.
4.26%
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.
2.26%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 0.44%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.53%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-16.01%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 3.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.24%
Debt growth of 0.24% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
1.57%
We increase R&D while MCHP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-11.96%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.