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.
-3.47%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-6.47%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-11.63%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.39%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-11.53%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-10.81%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-11.56%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.11%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.11%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
4.58%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.51%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
15.36%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
93.75%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
40.67%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 99.09%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
22.37%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-15.98%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
80.26%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 56.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
16.53%
Positive OCF/share growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-14.12%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
67.62%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.80% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
15.21%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-42.90%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 34.23%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
86.70%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 130.99%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
94.14%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 10.85%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
28.44%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 25.56%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
299.73%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 153.47%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
50.84%
Below 50% of MCHP's 146.51%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
18.30%
Below 50% of MCHP's 128.96%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-7.68%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
5.38%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 0.37%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.53%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-2.01%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-6.71%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 7.57%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.20%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
4.21%
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.