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.
-2.98%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 6.48%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-10.41%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 1.21%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-26.33%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 14.31%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-26.33%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 14.31%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-12.97%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 2.86%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-12.12%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-12.50%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.35%
Share reduction while MU is at 8.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
22.65%
Dividend growth of 22.65% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
38.54%
OCF growth at 50-75% of MU's 61.37%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
78.76%
FCF growth under 50% of MU's 633.81%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-2.53%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 45.75%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
16.81%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
63.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 110.92%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
160.39%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 49.51%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
34.06%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 11.14%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
55.27%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 730.47%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
124.14%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
7.41%
Below 50% of MU's 506.01%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
492.03%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 113.84%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
269.66%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 222.41%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
41.08%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 7.63%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
2.06%
Positive short-term equity growth while MU is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
64.52%
Stable or rising dividend while MU is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
29.35%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.35% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
13.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 13.43% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 0.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-7.37%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 8.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.00%
Asset growth at 50-75% of MU's 1.60%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
1.65%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.04%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.04%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MU's 9.81%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.72%
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.