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.
9.36%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
15.92%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
75.90%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
75.90%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
14.77%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-15.38%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-16.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
50.74%
Share count expansion well above MCHP's 0.18%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
51.98%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-35.45%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
109.22%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
186.64%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-48.19%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 214.72%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
21.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 40.09%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-38.73%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
36.94%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 432.44%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
120.38%
Below 50% of MCHP's 335.14%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
8.97%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
71.28%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 134.51%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
137.70%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 16.60%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-45.79%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
127.57%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1046.37%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
59.18%
Below 50% of MCHP's 177.23%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-36.96%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 64.82%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-5.96%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-4.47%
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.
-34.92%
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.
-4.66%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 2.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-1.11%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 8.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.81%
Asset growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.26%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-31.13%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.48%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-4.27%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-1.60%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.