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.
2.14%
Revenue growth under 50% of MCHP's 7.33%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
12.09%
Gross profit growth similar to MCHP's 11.38%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
128.36%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 15.52%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
128.36%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
119.86%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
119.44%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
119.44%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
2.54%
Share count expansion well above MCHP's 0.60%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.54%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 5.08%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.23%
Dividend growth of 0.23% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-73.66%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 5.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-87.40%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 312.67%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-6.45%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 55.22%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-22.48%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 23.96%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
64.62%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 841.29%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
506.54%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 25.62%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-52.39%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 49.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
26.17%
Below 50% of MCHP's 424.47%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
892.78%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 15.11%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-72.86%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
363.72%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1575.10%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
67.55%
Below 50% of MCHP's 212.31%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-6.45%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 140.18%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
46.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 46.91% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
4.65%
Dividend/share CAGR of 4.65% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
3.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 3.23% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.16%
AR growth well above MCHP's 3.67%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
11.65%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 0.15%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.93%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 4.63%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.52%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 3.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-20.32%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.97%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 4.97%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.51%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 3.80%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.