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.
-12.77%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 0.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.16%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 1.32%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-21.48%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.73%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-21.08%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 158.43%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-19.88%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 159.26%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.62%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 153.70%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.65%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.92%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 7.43%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
24.31%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MCHP cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
1.85%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
4.95%
FCF growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.86%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
100.57%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 213.43%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
39.89%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 94.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
23.68%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 58.66%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
157.89%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 235.86%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
103.87%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 140.18%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
59.17%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 73.18%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
1456.48%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 55.86% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
176.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 105.24%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
57.27%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 26.90%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
29.63%
Below 50% of MCHP's 157.76%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-5.16%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 41.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-4.04%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 37.93%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
601.64%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 14.86%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
157.27%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.70%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
102.33%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 1.62%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-23.85%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 1.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
4.77%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-7.73%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 1.64%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-13.04%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 2.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.02%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MCHP's 0.94%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
2.56%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 1.48%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
4.55%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 4.99%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.