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.
-10.32%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-13.87%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-72.60%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-51.78%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-53.37%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-49.18%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-49.18%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.03%
Slight or no buybacks while MU is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.23%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.66%
Dividend growth of 0.66% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
329.17%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
25.90%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
53.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 4624.67%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
17.67%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 659.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-2.29%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 293.76%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
582.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 925.88%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
-38.49%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 123.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
392.80%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 392.80% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
140.03%
Below 50% of MU's 6261.50%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-41.82%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 1357.56%. 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.
80.63%
Below 50% of MU's 266.77%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
71.68%
Below 50% of MU's 215.12%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
104.00%
Dividend/share CAGR of 104.00% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-78.68%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
15.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.10% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-3.94%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
0.35%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 10.48%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.30%
Asset growth well under 50% of MU's 4.69%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.11%
Under 50% of MU's 9.37%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
14.36%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 150.03%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-3.29%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 3.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.26%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MU's 31.28%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.