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.
6.35%
Revenue growth under 50% of MPWR's 14.46%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
8.67%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of MPWR's 14.46%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
19.59%
EBIT growth below 50% of MPWR's 58.18%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
19.65%
Operating income growth under 50% of MPWR's 58.18%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
20.94%
Net income growth under 50% of MPWR's 75.41%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
22.22%
EPS growth under 50% of MPWR's 70.59%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
22.58%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MPWR's 75.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.03%
Share reduction while MPWR is at 0.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.10%
Reduced diluted shares while MPWR is at 0.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.21%
Dividend reduction while MPWR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
78.45%
Positive OCF growth while MPWR is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
84.17%
Positive FCF growth while MPWR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
75.81%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MPWR is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
43.93%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MPWR's 45.49%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
9.01%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MPWR's 28.11%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
139.61%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MPWR is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
96.33%
Below 50% of MPWR's 239.97%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
31.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MPWR's 55.71%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
139.45%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MPWR's 271.97%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
81.78%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MPWR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
48.33%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MPWR's 77.58%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
32.52%
Below 50% of MPWR's 1094.50%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
31.35%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MPWR's 51.17%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
2.49%
Below 50% of MPWR's 24.84%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1346.20%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1346.20% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
173.68%
Dividend/share CAGR of 173.68% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
132.62%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 132.62% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-3.27%
Firm’s AR is declining while MPWR shows 13.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
0.40%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MPWR's 0.94%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.51%
Asset growth well under 50% of MPWR's 1.56%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.09%
50-75% of MPWR's 1.84%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-0.06%
We’re deleveraging while MPWR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-4.87%
Our R&D shrinks while MPWR invests at 9.81%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.91%
We cut SG&A while MPWR invests at 0.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.