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.
-7.92%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 5.23%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-9.52%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 5.90%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-17.63%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 5.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-17.63%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 5.75%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-4.84%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 88.34%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.13%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 89.47%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.52%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.43%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.41%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
29.35%
Dividend growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 19.85%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if management’s capital return strategy is more aggressive yet sustainable.
101.67%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
341.26%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
204.26%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 181.56%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
111.21%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 12.09%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
120.70%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 57.33%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
37.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 373.98%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
18.07%
Below 50% of MCHP's 685.21%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
39.81%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 93.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2571.27%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 349.75% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
727.64%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 237.05%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
129.87%
Below 50% of MCHP's 278.09%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
187.22%
Below 50% of MCHP's 545.61%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
4.23%
Below 50% of MCHP's 70.42%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
69.04%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 40.70%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
87.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 87.75% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
75.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 75.60% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
184.42%
Below 50% of MCHP's 856.61%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-15.08%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 24.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-3.62%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 0.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-5.78%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 17.15%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.10%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 4.22%. 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.
-2.46%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 4.88%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.39%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 7.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.