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.
8.29%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
17.45%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
99.20%
EBIT growth below 50% of MCHP's 959.21%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
99.20%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 959.21%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
269.42%
Net income growth comparable to MCHP's 254.50%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
271.43%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 240.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
257.14%
Similar diluted EPS growth to MCHP's 240.00%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
-0.54%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
3.44%
Diluted share count expanding well above MCHP's 0.61%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
0.54%
Dividend growth of 0.54% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
34.92%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 30.95%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
28.24%
FCF growth 75-90% of MCHP's 34.09%. Bill Ackman might push for improved capital allocation or operational changes to match the competitor.
-3.87%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 281.38%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
8.86%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 44.27%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-19.76%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 9.75%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
64.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 505.68%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-17.74%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 97.49%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
4.61%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.93%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
151.10%
Below 50% of MCHP's 437.11%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
147.51%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 147.22%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
-34.10%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 16.51%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
308.57%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1172.20%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
72.15%
Below 50% of MCHP's 184.45%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-8.05%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 117.18%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
31.93%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.93% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.18%
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.
5.82%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 5.82% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.69%
AR growth well above MCHP's 3.84%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-0.50%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 1.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.09%
Asset growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 4.79%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
5.01%
1.25-1.5x MCHP's 3.41%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-4.68%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
10.38%
We increase R&D while MCHP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-4.57%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.