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.
3.98%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.14%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
-2.45%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 0.38%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-29.68%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-29.68%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
97.89%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.85%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
120.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 5.82%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
120.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 120.00% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-10.05%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-10.05%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.59%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-7.61%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
45.99%
Similar OCF growth to MCHP's 50.64%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
40.95%
FCF growth under 50% of MCHP's 159.84%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-16.58%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 227.62%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-18.69%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 49.66%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-7.31%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 26.51%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
28.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 369.97%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-6.59%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 260.46%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
4.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 145.55%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
131.58%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 253.00%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
-90.07%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 46.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-54.01%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 17.97%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
290.57%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1067.94%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
58.71%
Below 50% of MCHP's 301.85%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
37.68%
Below 50% of MCHP's 169.51%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
10.87%
Dividend/share CAGR of 10.87% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
2.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2.63% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
8.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 8.23% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-2.08%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
0.37%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.60%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 3.67%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
8.39%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MCHP's 4.35%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.24%
Debt growth of 0.24% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
2.72%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 6.15%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
4.75%
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.