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.
2.97%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
4.03%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
16.31%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
12.45%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
207.84%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
204.00%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
200.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
4.94%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.45%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
5.32%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-7.43%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
59.20%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
136.40%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
36.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 1123.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-23.23%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MU stands at 74.36%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-0.63%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 26.66%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
277.93%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 592.98%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
42.76%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-5.23%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
8874.99%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 13624.37%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
307.63%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
365.54%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
292.02%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 573.80%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
211.37%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 166.93%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
153.92%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 40.72%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
7.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 7.92% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
29.26%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MU is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
-7.85%
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.
9.79%
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.
8.75%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 36.90%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
11.76%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 2.02%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
7.81%
Similar to MU's 7.18%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
-1.82%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.25%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 12.87%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
3.09%
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.