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.
-1.49%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 42.17%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.01%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 80.93%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-1.42%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 166.18%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
0.44%
Operating income growth under 50% of MU's 166.18%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-4.70%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-4.35%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.35%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.46%
Share reduction while MU is at 1.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.54%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 5.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.15%
Dividend growth of 0.15% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-61.47%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 110.18%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-64.74%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 124.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
62.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 121.20%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
68.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 113.14%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-5.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 66.94%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
88.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 257.81%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
117.10%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 210.34%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
-3.34%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 91.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
112.73%
Below 50% of MU's 19620.18%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
3278.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 137.49%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-21.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 114.83%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
40.88%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 2.89%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
36.00%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 24.28%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
8.43%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 4.24%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
1308.17%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1308.17% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
171.86%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MU is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
129.32%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 129.32% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.64%
AR growth well above MU's 21.64%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-0.98%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.02%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.28%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
9.58%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.78%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MU's 19.85%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.90%
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.