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.
1.73%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 3.34%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
1.31%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MCHP's 4.25%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-2.41%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 6.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.41%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 6.68%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-70.59%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-69.48%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-69.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-3.03%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.67%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.09%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.93%
Dividend growth under 50% of MCHP's 27.69%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-34.43%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 10.03%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-46.04%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 3.70%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
57.48%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 148.09%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
125.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 22.48%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
69.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 35.12%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
176.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 649.87%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
39.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 8.67%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-6.21%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 54.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
581.29%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 470.64%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
765.91%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
79.28%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 6.24%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
194.56%
Below 50% of MCHP's 587.73%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
15.59%
Below 50% of MCHP's 92.02%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
20.14%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 35.18%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
40.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.48% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
37.98%
Dividend/share CAGR of 37.98% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
41.93%
Below 50% of MCHP's 697.90%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
8.29%
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.
11.69%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 4.00%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-7.18%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 2.47%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.02%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 1.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.34%
We increase R&D while MCHP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.35%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 2.15%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.