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 / 6.59M (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.
-10.04%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 2.93%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-13.64%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 3.30%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-18.51%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 4.22%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.97%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 4.48%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-19.78%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 4.08%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-20.21%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 3.77%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.46%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 4.81%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.11%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
4.88%
Dividend growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 9.11%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in returning cash to shareholders.
-0.67%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
75.57%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
61.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 271.87%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
15.12%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 91.11%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
1.24%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 47.80%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
91.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 306.64%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-5.86%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 69.31%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-8.36%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 67.60%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
220.89%
Below 50% of MCHP's 624.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
16.14%
Below 50% of MCHP's 253.23%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-17.80%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 430.87%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
87.00%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 141.36%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
97.18%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 70.38%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
86.15%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.39%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
333.29%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 102.73%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
68.41%
5Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 97.40%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging policy in mid-term shareholder returns.
27.57%
Below 50% of MCHP's 95.46%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-9.56%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 11.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.33%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MCHP's 13.69%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
2.24%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 1.58%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
1.60%
Under 50% of MCHP's 3.63%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
5.05%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-2.34%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 5.63%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-3.10%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 0.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.