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.
18.34%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
40.10%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.11%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
452.27%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 7.41%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
452.27%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 7.41%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
350.00%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 6.32%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
350.00%
EPS growth of 350.00% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
350.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 6.38%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
18.11%
Dividend growth of 18.11% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
30.74%
OCF growth under 50% of MCHP's 136.89%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
19.32%
FCF growth under 50% of MCHP's 516.00%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-23.21%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 198.84%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-31.88%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 62.20%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-23.85%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 17.68%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
92.96%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 179.06%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-48.34%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 72.28%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
5.65%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 30.42%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-12.50%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is at 335.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-69.24%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 60.55%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-75.71%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 13.63%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
285.89%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1286.95%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
105.52%
Below 50% of MCHP's 309.12%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
42.79%
Below 50% of MCHP's 152.10%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
15.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.92% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
6.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.77% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
8.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 8.43% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
22.90%
AR growth well above MCHP's 3.85%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
6.77%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-3.53%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 3.09%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.98%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 3.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.12%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 3.25%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
11.32%
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.