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.
8.55%
Revenue growth similar to MCHP's 9.00%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
10.73%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 17.83%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
18.30%
EBIT growth below 50% of MCHP's 207.15%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
18.21%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 206.19%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
5.92%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 129.92%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
6.06%
EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 130.77%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
6.19%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 126.92%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.40%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.63%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.39%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 9.15%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.00%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MCHP cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
15.35%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
14.67%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
55.93%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 224.46%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
27.00%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 126.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
20.87%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 62.34%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
47.63%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 83.25%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
55.81%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 27.07%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
27.49%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 31.60%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
150.27%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
171.55%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
66.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
34.68%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MCHP's 35.90%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
10.06%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 17.16%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
10.24%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 14.57%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
526.04%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 53.36%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
192.90%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 3.82%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
66.12%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 1.68%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
9.87%
AR growth well above MCHP's 3.57%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
5.64%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.88%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.05%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
6.70%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
2.44%
We increase R&D while MCHP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-1.14%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.