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.
-5.74%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 5.98%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.15%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 7.74%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-20.25%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 39.47%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
2.69%
Operating income growth under 50% of MU's 39.47%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-16.12%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 65.67%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-17.24%
Negative EPS growth while MU is at 84.62%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-14.29%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 76.92%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.33%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.36%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.95%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-59.92%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-77.51%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-9.32%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 53.74%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
3.28%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
81.70%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 175.77%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
96.01%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
24.83%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
97.36%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
56.05%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-6.33%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
1308.11%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 154.03%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
217.61%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MU's 212.06%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
1.99%
Below 50% of MU's 9.82%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
12.23%
Positive short-term equity growth while MU is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
63.26%
Stable or rising dividend while MU is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
17.88%
Dividend/share CAGR of 17.88% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.81% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.88%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 22.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-7.69%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 1.71%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-7.64%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 11.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.58%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.43%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-4.97%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 34.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.