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.
8.98%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
13.85%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MCHP's 4.05%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
55.96%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 50.54%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
34.61%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 50.54%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
52.80%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 38.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
58.33%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 27.27%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
58.33%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 40.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
-4.00%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-3.80%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.68%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 14.88%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
58.13%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
131.71%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-8.26%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 288.94%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
19.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 57.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
74.31%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 50.51%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
93.48%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 1028.05%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
35.53%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 10.01%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
148.63%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 104.20%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
107.17%
Below 50% of MCHP's 527.85%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-49.18%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 119.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
669.14%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 152.27%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
195.47%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1059.25%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-5.11%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 177.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
17.24%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 31.47%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
63.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 63.48% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
26.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 26.48% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
9.16%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 9.16% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.15%
AR growth well above MCHP's 7.27%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-3.45%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-3.72%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 3.26%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.31%
Under 50% of MCHP's 2.08%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-3.22%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.40%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 0.16%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.45%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 2.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.