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.
1.73%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 7.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
1.31%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 40.34%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-2.41%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.41%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-70.59%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-69.48%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-69.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-3.03%
Share reduction while MU is at 7.12%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.09%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.77%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.93%
Dividend growth of 0.93% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-34.43%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-46.04%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
57.48%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 3.05%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
125.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 34.95%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
69.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 53.75%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
176.00%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
39.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 62.09%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
-6.21%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 600.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
581.29%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
765.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 123.76%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
79.28%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MU's 135.35%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
194.56%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 73.28%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
15.59%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
20.14%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MU's 19.59%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
40.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.48% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
37.98%
Dividend/share CAGR of 37.98% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
41.93%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 41.93% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.29%
Our AR growth while MU is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
11.69%
Inventory growth well above MU's 16.57%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-7.18%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 9.85%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.02%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 2.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.34%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 4.81%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.35%
SG&A growth well above MU's 4.81%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.