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.
10.89%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
14.06%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
32.73%
EBIT growth below 50% of MU's 199.68%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
32.73%
Operating income growth under 50% of MU's 199.68%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
308.03%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 208.31%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
316.22%
EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 190.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
316.67%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 200.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-2.02%
Share reduction while MU is at 1.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.98%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 1.06%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.07%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
14.72%
OCF growth under 50% of MU's 106.91%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
77.85%
FCF growth under 50% of MU's 343.13%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
50.46%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
109.30%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 3.18%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
75.93%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 43.24%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
278.11%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with MU's 262.07%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
25.75%
Below 50% of MU's 2595.42%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
88.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 3054.61%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2966.45%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1497.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 296.20%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
2095.75%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 128.61%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
191.78%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 87.45%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
16.42%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
30.08%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 20.53%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
42.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 42.42% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
46.49%
Dividend/share CAGR of 46.49% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
41.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 41.39% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
7.29%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MU's 15.11%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
7.14%
Inventory growth well above MU's 0.54%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
13.46%
Asset growth at 75-90% of MU's 17.07%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
16.14%
50-75% of MU's 23.65%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-86.48%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
0.56%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.71%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 13.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.