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.
1.55%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-0.04%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-5.71%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-3.85%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-2.16%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-2.27%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-1.54%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.22%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.33%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.06%
Dividend growth under 50% of MCHP's 0.45%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-57.51%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-134.00%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
48.25%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 75.09%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
25.05%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-15.86%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
60.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 69.68%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
2.07%
Positive OCF/share growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-59.84%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
106.27%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 7.28% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
2.74%
Below 50% of MCHP's 126.00%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-45.67%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
81.59%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 120.26%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
117.02%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 7.34%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
18.72%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MCHP's 18.39%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
299.12%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 154.18%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
50.60%
Below 50% of MCHP's 146.82%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
18.13%
Below 50% of MCHP's 118.82%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
77.72%
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.
3.53%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.93%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.73%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.50%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.68%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.30%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 0.58%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.83%
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.