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.
8.61%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
11.90%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
22.28%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
24.52%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
20.85%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
20.33%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
20.49%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.11%
Slight or no buybacks while MCHP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.11%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.06%
Dividend growth under 50% of MCHP's 7.05%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
10.25%
OCF growth under 50% of MCHP's 38.48%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-17.95%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 46.51%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
37.66%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 169.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
12.73%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 12.43%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-9.62%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 27.21%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
45.40%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 322.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-10.96%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 55.13%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-27.88%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 63.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
91.44%
Below 50% of MCHP's 192.35%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-2.12%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 645.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-29.28%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 1028.03%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
91.46%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 150.80%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
96.82%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 20.09%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
43.67%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 30.20%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
332.01%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 147.33%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
68.60%
Below 50% of MCHP's 140.52%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
27.39%
Below 50% of MCHP's 140.89%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
8.83%
Our AR growth while MCHP is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
4.63%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.78%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.20%
Under 50% of MCHP's 2.04%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
4.92%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-1.20%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-7.96%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.