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.
0.06%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 19.31%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.03%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 225.87%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
6.44%
EBIT growth below 50% of MU's 135.59%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
6.44%
Operating income growth under 50% of MU's 135.59%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
3.80%
Net income growth under 50% of MU's 133.70%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
5.13%
EPS growth under 50% of MU's 133.15%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
5.26%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MU's 133.15%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.23%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.50%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.28%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
194294.01%
Dividend growth of 194294.01% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-40.03%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-47.18%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 95.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-5.84%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
28.37%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
70.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 56.93%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
61.20%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
49.82%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
24.02%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 233.03%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
112.59%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
11.83%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
213.01%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 106.86%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
175.31%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 105.66%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
2.48%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
13.01%
Positive short-term equity growth while MU is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
37.38%
Stable or rising dividend while MU is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
40.20%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.20% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.49%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.49% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.94%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 7.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
9.93%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.53%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.79%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 1.12%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
84.64%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-5.12%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
4.17%
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.