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 / 6.59M (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.
5.62%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 8.85%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
14.26%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
51.57%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
129.37%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
82.32%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
84.37%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
81.25%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.36%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.53%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
33.67%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.04%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
87.22%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
109.06%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
104.15%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 136.90%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
8.82%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 66.83%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-4.55%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 60.86%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
179.43%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 15.99%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
55.41%
Positive OCF/share growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
31.35%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
754.81%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
34.33%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-6.00%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
58.52%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 82.27%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
32.67%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 13.86%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
24.26%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 28.11%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
1208.79%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1208.79% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
180.15%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 19.95%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
130.21%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 4.41%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
11.85%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MCHP's 31.93%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
1.18%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 30.72%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.54%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 23.64%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.43%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-9.11%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 168.54%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-7.16%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 31.25%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
2.61%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MCHP's 29.10%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.