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.
7.30%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.05%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
8.98%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.19%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
18.97%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.87%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
18.97%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.87%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
18.22%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.25%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
16.67%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 5.56%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
20.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 20.00% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-0.35%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.07%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.15%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
98.97%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 9.22%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
62.09%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
93.07%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
42.64%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 184.22%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
109.40%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 75.22%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
29.69%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 51.68%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
58.50%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 406.84%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
206.80%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to MCHP's 194.20%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
117.86%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 49.23%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
161.17%
Below 50% of MCHP's 410.75%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
748.99%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 218.13%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
69.80%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MCHP's 109.99%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
174.56%
Below 50% of MCHP's 591.34%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
33.59%
Below 50% of MCHP's 68.98%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
13.44%
Below 50% of MCHP's 41.11%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
271.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 271.51% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
247.95%
Dividend/share CAGR of 247.95% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
281.54%
Below 50% of MCHP's 879.37%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
8.03%
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.
1.06%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 0.81%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.96%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.22%
50-75% of MCHP's 3.05%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.18%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 3.78%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.69%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 1.81%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.