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.
-7.18%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 5.02%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-3.63%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 6.83%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.36%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 7.21%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.36%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 7.21%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-10.69%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 8.19%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-9.76%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.18%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.22%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 2.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
1.20%
Dividend growth under 50% of MCHP's 35.79%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-38.66%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 64.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-73.49%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 60.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
19.20%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 211.45%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
47.21%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 27.55%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
60.39%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 32.13%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
839.85%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 338.62%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
422.47%
Positive OCF/share growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
199.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 27.41%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
243.23%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 387.80%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
183.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 33.35%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
427.26%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 171.31%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
154.02%
Below 50% of MCHP's 715.95%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-3.52%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 113.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
10.46%
Below 50% of MCHP's 34.56%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
43.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 43.45% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
44.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 44.81% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
36.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 36.80% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.10%
AR growth well above MCHP's 15.50%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-2.12%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 0.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-6.80%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 4.10%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.73%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 4.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-51.89%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.60%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 0.27%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-0.94%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 11.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.