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.
0.06%
Revenue growth under 50% of MCHP's 1.31%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.03%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 2.19%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
6.44%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.81%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
6.44%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.81%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
3.80%
Net income growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 6.14%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
5.13%
EPS growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 7.69%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
5.26%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 7.69%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-1.23%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.50%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
194294.01%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 34.48%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-40.03%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-47.18%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-5.84%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 201.65%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
28.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 26.56%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
70.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 34.90%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
61.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 367.73%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
49.82%
Positive OCF/share growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
24.02%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
112.59%
Below 50% of MCHP's 343.65%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
11.83%
Below 50% of MCHP's 58.02%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
213.01%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 106.81%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
175.31%
Below 50% of MCHP's 680.06%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
2.48%
Below 50% of MCHP's 103.81%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
13.01%
Below 50% of MCHP's 33.26%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
37.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 37.38% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
40.20%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.20% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.49%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.49% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.94%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 7.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
9.93%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 6.10%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.53%
Asset growth well under 50% of MCHP's 1.81%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.79%
50-75% of MCHP's 2.89%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
84.64%
Debt growth far above MCHP's 2.72%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-5.12%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 0.96%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.17%
We expand SG&A while MCHP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.