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.
0.23%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-0.51%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-13.11%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-10.06%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-10.57%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-8.77%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-8.93%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.04%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.64%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.95%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 2.91%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.30%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 101.27%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
80.35%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
166.20%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
173.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 115.67%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
21.32%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 76.09%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
16.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 60.77%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
397.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 41.23%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
257.54%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 29.96%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
23.30%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 15.91%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
850.50%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 146.76% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
12.70%
Below 50% of MCHP's 182.44%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
21.68%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MCHP's 38.87%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
39.50%
Below 50% of MCHP's 116.04%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
20.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 12.51%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
24.51%
Below 50% of MCHP's 56.61%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
484.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 484.42% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
323.55%
Similar 5Y dividend/share CAGR to MCHP's 332.66%. Walter Schloss sees parallel philosophies in mid-term capital returns.
28.78%
Below 50% of MCHP's 115.31%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
6.70%
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.
11.52%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 6.69%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
22.28%
Asset growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.72%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.19%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.14%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
65.84%
Debt growth far above MCHP's 0.43%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-6.84%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-5.60%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.