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.
-6.66%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 22.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.81%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 27.34%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-18.38%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 38.93%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.60%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 38.93%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-18.76%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 3872.09%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-17.86%
Negative EPS growth while MU is at 4025.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-17.86%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 3675.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.91%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.81%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 7.91%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
6.82%
Dividend growth of 6.82% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
4.17%
OCF growth under 50% of MU's 14.90%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
6.33%
FCF growth above 1.5x MU's 3.80%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
160.86%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 88.70%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
43.38%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MU's 46.75%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-7.30%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 26.11%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
168.15%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 277.86%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
26.50%
Below 50% of MU's 120.70%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
5.20%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
137.70%
Below 50% of MU's 917.57%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
463.32%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to MU's 471.37%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
-41.46%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 452.30%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
117.37%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 8.45%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
36.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 10.68%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
11.74%
Below 50% of MU's 26.06%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
2060.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2060.94% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
172.72%
Dividend/share CAGR of 172.72% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
129.94%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 129.94% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-21.06%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 54.96%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
0.29%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 52.94%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.59%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 36.02%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.31%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.06%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 66.58%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.98%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 18.14%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.86%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 51.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.