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.
10.89%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MCHP's 4.01%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
14.06%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MCHP's 5.53%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
32.73%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 8.58%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
32.73%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 8.58%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
308.03%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 7.59%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
316.22%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 14.29%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
316.67%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 14.29%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-2.02%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.98%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.74%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.07%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 31.57%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
14.72%
Similar OCF growth to MCHP's 16.03%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
77.85%
FCF growth above 1.5x MCHP's 24.61%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
50.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 192.12%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
109.30%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 18.62%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
75.93%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 29.19%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
278.11%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 382.80%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
25.75%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 22.77%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
88.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 83.77%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
2966.45%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 370.00% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
1497.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 30.66%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
2095.75%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 517.17%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
191.78%
Below 50% of MCHP's 673.28%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
16.42%
Below 50% of MCHP's 99.27%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
30.08%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 37.62%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
42.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 42.42% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
46.49%
Dividend/share CAGR of 46.49% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
41.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 41.39% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
7.29%
Our AR growth while MCHP is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
7.14%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 6.15%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
13.46%
Asset growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.49%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
16.14%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.31%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-86.48%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.56%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 1.03%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-0.71%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 1.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.