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.
4.40%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.54%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-2.20%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.95%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
1.99%
Net income growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.03%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
1.65%
EPS growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.82%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
1.67%
Diluted EPS growth of 1.67% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
0.22%
Slight or no buybacks while MCHP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.22%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.05%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 7.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
54.47%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
319.48%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
36.34%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 233.34%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
7.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 36.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-15.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 62.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
138.05%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 189.76%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-10.13%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 9.76%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-25.04%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 27.45%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
93.78%
Below 50% of MCHP's 386.56%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-11.27%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 501.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-40.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 753.84%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
93.15%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 151.50%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
108.41%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 17.04%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
56.21%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 20.68%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
330.83%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 131.48%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
68.63%
5Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 125.12%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging policy in mid-term shareholder returns.
27.31%
Below 50% of MCHP's 120.30%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
2.39%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MCHP's 16.46%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
0.56%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.47%
Asset growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 0.65%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
1.14%
Under 50% of MCHP's 2.38%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.10%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.75%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.18%
We increase R&D while MCHP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.20%
We expand SG&A while MCHP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.