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.
3.98%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 19.40%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.45%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 17.62%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-29.68%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 20.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-29.68%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 20.85%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
97.89%
Net income growth above 1.5x MU's 20.39%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
120.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 20.55%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
120.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 20.55%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-10.05%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-10.05%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-7.61%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
45.99%
OCF growth under 50% of MU's 317.47%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
40.95%
FCF growth under 50% of MU's 111.10%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-16.58%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 272.80%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-18.69%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-7.31%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
28.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 480.54%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-6.59%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 40.30%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
4.84%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
131.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-90.07%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-54.01%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 22.75%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
290.57%
Below 50% of MU's 770.59%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
58.71%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 74.07%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
37.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 56.62%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
10.87%
Dividend/share CAGR of 10.87% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
2.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2.63% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
8.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 8.23% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-2.08%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 26.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
0.37%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 25.37%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.60%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
8.39%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 0.51%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.24%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
2.72%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
4.75%
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.