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.
6.71%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 14.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
1.74%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-18.30%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.30%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
3.42%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.42%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.33%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
3.42%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.33%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-3.31%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
92.86%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
237.50%
FCF growth above 1.5x MU's 14.56%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-16.43%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 119.87%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-2.34%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-18.48%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
23.60%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
10.68%
Below 50% of MU's 128.25%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-41.48%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-18.75%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
110.54%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-90.75%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
285.08%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 390.10%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
66.14%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 28.69%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
-14.43%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
15.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.94% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
1.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.45% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
7.83%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 7.83% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.49%
AR growth well above MU's 8.82%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
13.38%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.66%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-1.39%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-12.30%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 161.38%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
3.92%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MU's 12.69%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
8.97%
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.