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.
6.78%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
10.01%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MCHP's 1.20%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
15.16%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
14.13%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.62%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
10.15%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
10.00%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
9.63%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.11%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 3.35%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.21%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 3.82%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.10%
Dividend growth under 50% of MCHP's 2.00%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
14.65%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
12.52%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
65.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 149.30%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
52.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 104.40%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
20.69%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 17.91%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
320.99%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 109.77%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
115.68%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 156.97%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
22.95%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 18.64%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
259.89%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
156.30%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
45.48%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
28.12%
Below 50% of MCHP's 141.98%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
21.70%
Below 50% of MCHP's 116.03%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
11.02%
Below 50% of MCHP's 39.90%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
686.53%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 8.52%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
168.06%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 10.80%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
64.54%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.78%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
0.44%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MCHP's 1.05%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-1.80%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 0.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.91%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
9.59%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.02%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
1.30%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 0.91%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.