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.
6.10%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
6.17%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
15.50%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
15.25%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
14.66%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.67%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.92%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.40%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.29%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.52%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.30%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
71.83%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
82.73%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
52.13%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 164.47%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
6.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 93.17%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
12.10%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 52.99%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
48.23%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 71.88%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
24.14%
Below 50% of MCHP's 67.35%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
29.91%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 214.72%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
101.43%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 66.37% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
7.87%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 13.31%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
12.80%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 5.78%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
33.75%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 61.03%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
16.21%
Below 50% of MCHP's 38.94%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-3.10%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 10.70%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
2216987.49%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 585.92%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
182.59%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 4.92%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
98.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.34%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
3.28%
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.
-6.05%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 0.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-5.66%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 0.40%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.92%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 1.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-15.40%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 1.36%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-1.25%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-7.66%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.