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.
-19.42%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-49.76%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-230.13%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-230.13%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-185.65%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-184.62%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-184.62%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
1.23%
Share count expansion well above MU's 2.05%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.23%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-1.21%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
392.44%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
131.24%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-15.41%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 488.74%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-28.11%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-17.91%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 0.78%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
1951.34%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 37.81%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
200.68%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
65.62%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 133.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
12.15%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-319.46%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-430.85%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
352.70%
Below 50% of MU's 722.29%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
150.63%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 124.20%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
85.64%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MU's 85.51%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
-79.28%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-2.78%
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.
-2.08%
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.
-14.48%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-8.31%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 11.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-3.13%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-3.76%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-2.28%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-7.62%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
14.94%
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.