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.
-17.37%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-66.29%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-101.44%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-101.44%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-63.79%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-65.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-65.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-2.12%
Share reduction while MU is at 2.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.12%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 2.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
3.02%
Dividend growth of 3.02% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-74.43%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-1004.76%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 135.71%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
24.33%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 592.74%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
24.33%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 592.74%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
13.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 104.06%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
192.70%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 192.70% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
192.70%
Net income/share CAGR of 192.70% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
-83.61%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
76.60%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 76.60% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-2.85%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
6.52%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 22.97%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.34%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 9.94%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.80%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-3.06%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 102.14%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.50%
We expand SG&A while MU cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.