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.
-2.98%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 7.62%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-10.41%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 9.49%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-26.33%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 10.18%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-26.33%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 10.18%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-12.97%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 14.70%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-12.12%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 10.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-12.50%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 15.79%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.35%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
22.65%
Dividend growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 17.34%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if management’s capital return strategy is more aggressive yet sustainable.
38.54%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
78.76%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-2.53%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 293.05%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
16.81%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 53.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
63.75%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
160.39%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 779.46%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
34.06%
Below 50% of MCHP's 142.34%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
55.27%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 599.05%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
124.14%
Below 50% of MCHP's 463.08%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
7.41%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1941.82%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
492.03%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 114.05%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
269.66%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1164.04%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
41.08%
Below 50% of MCHP's 204.31%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
2.06%
Below 50% of MCHP's 33.56%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
64.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 64.52% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
29.35%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.35% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
13.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 13.43% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 18.51%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-7.37%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.00%
Asset growth well under 50% of MCHP's 2.57%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.65%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.21%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-1.04%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.04%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 5.96%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.72%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MCHP's 7.51%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.