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.
-7.18%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-3.63%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-11.36%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.36%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-10.69%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-9.76%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-10.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.18%
Share reduction while MPWR is at 0.72%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.22%
Reduced diluted shares while MPWR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
1.20%
Dividend growth of 1.20% while MPWR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-38.66%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-73.49%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
19.20%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MPWR's 161.10%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
47.21%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MPWR's 161.10%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
60.39%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MPWR's 58.83%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
839.85%
OCF/share CAGR of 839.85% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
422.47%
OCF/share CAGR of 422.47% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
199.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 199.68% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
243.23%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MPWR's 91.47% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
183.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MPWR's 91.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
427.26%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MPWR's 95.46%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
154.02%
Equity/share CAGR of 154.02% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-3.52%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MPWR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
10.46%
Equity/share CAGR of 10.46% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
43.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 43.45% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
44.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 44.81% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
36.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 36.80% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.10%
Our AR growth while MPWR is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-2.12%
Inventory is declining while MPWR stands at 38.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-6.80%
Negative asset growth while MPWR invests at 5.18%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.73%
We have a declining book value while MPWR shows 4.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-51.89%
We’re deleveraging while MPWR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.60%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MPWR's 46.07%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-0.94%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.