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.
-0.35%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 43.35%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.52%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MCHP's 15.10%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-16.03%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-5.08%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-4.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-4.81%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.90%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.20%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 5.12%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.10%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.00%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.45%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-42.68%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 10.55%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-47.69%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 10.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
54.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 204.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
24.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 89.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
23.53%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 58.85%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
107.34%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 72.55%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
102.79%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 138.66%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
86.39%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 25.26%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
179.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
330.89%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
121.75%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
36.24%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 41.66%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
10.06%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 19.63%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
8.51%
Below 50% of MCHP's 19.17%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1145.59%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 67.68%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
193.66%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 4.04%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
66.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 1.93%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
5.52%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MCHP's 50.08%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.96%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 68.97%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-2.76%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 32.17%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.38%
Under 50% of MCHP's 12.01%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-6.95%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 35.99%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.58%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 54.63%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
6.81%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MCHP's 101.17%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.