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.
-7.10%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.45%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 3.44%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
8.36%
EBIT growth similar to MCHP's 8.71%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
-5.45%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 5.01%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
8.16%
Net income growth at 75-90% of MCHP's 10.04%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
4.00%
EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 13.33%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
4.08%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 14.29%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.51%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.10%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
31.30%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.09%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-1.84%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
0.24%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
45.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 134.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
13.86%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 35.05%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
22.94%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 24.66%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
141.93%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 84.27%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
62.92%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 22.22%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
26.13%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 55.85%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
131.02%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
300.73%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
123.41%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 8.51%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
35.88%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 29.51%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
9.07%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with MCHP's 9.21%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
5.67%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 6.97%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
1168.08%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 87.73%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
194.90%
Below 50% of MCHP's 2243714.25%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
66.90%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 1.60%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-12.44%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 17.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-1.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.33%
Asset growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 2.22%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
2.34%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.94%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-0.06%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 1.95%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-2.83%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-7.01%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 2.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.