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.
9.08%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 17.47%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
12.14%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MCHP's 27.90%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
15.73%
EBIT growth below 50% of MCHP's 47.64%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
16.53%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 69.11%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
16.87%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 62.54%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
18.87%
EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 60.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
19.23%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 60.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-2.03%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.01%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.70%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MCHP cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-20.85%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 11.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-43.18%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 9.65%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
74.35%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MCHP's 81.54%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
45.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 15.60%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
21.46%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
24.50%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 96.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-8.14%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 79.03%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-25.55%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 24.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-15.87%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is at 82.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
65.53%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
49.96%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
9.16%
Below 50% of MCHP's 230.38%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
15.04%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 18.95%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
0.96%
Positive short-term equity growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
513.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 513.01% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
384.68%
5Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 637.65%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging policy in mid-term shareholder returns.
52.06%
3Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 44.28%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the company's short-term profits or payout policy justify these higher hikes.
12.39%
AR growth well above MCHP's 8.78%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
5.72%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.67%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 1.34%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.55%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.95%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 6.99%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.29%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MCHP's 12.82%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.