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.
-0.42%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-0.96%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.65%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.38%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
21.82%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
14.29%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
15.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
4.86%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.76%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
5.55%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-7.44%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
71.52%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 52.17%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
221.43%
FCF growth above 1.5x MU's 67.62%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
2.56%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 389.82%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-18.47%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MU stands at 60.71%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-10.52%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
17.47%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
212.82%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
309.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
90.17%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
346.95%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
112.72%
Below 50% of MU's 477.95%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
143.50%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 242.70%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
73.87%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 27.70%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
74.53%
Dividend/share CAGR of 74.53% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
31.98%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MU is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
-9.70%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MU invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
16.07%
Our AR growth while MU is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
9.29%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 20.99%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
19.47%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 0.21%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
12.42%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
16.35%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-4.11%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
10.71%
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.