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.
18.34%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 52.37%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
40.10%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 167.26%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
452.27%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MU's 86.95%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
452.27%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MU's 86.95%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
350.00%
Net income growth above 1.5x MU's 88.57%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
350.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 88.50%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
350.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 88.50%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
18.11%
Dividend growth of 18.11% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
30.74%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
19.32%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-23.21%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 219.39%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-31.88%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-23.85%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
92.96%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-48.34%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
5.65%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-12.50%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-69.24%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-75.71%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
285.89%
Below 50% of MU's 769.71%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
105.52%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 84.64%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
42.79%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 53.89%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
15.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.92% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
6.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.77% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
8.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 8.43% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
22.90%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MU's 55.97%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
6.77%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 21.42%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-3.53%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 2.17%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.98%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.12%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
11.32%
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.