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.
6.98%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
11.21%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
25.22%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
25.22%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
27.21%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
30.95%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
28.57%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.39%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.43%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.53%
Dividend growth under 50% of MCHP's 6.48%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
70.49%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
90.47%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
59.81%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 145.86%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
96.53%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 64.28%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
37.60%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 35.44%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
205.28%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 524.74%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
226.83%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 73.32%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
98.43%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-50.56%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is at 321.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
397.85%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 186.87%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
68.28%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 71.28%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
92.20%
Below 50% of MCHP's 562.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
21.10%
Below 50% of MCHP's 64.90%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
5.44%
Below 50% of MCHP's 37.40%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
288.56%
Dividend/share CAGR of 288.56% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
278.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 278.60% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
286.61%
Below 50% of MCHP's 732.56%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
6.64%
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.
1.83%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 3.63%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-2.11%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-1.74%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 1.83%. 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.
-1.63%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
1.18%
We expand SG&A while MCHP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.