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.
-3.64%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 8.19%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.17%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 18.27%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-13.26%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 31.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-12.91%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 31.04%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-20.48%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.48%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.74%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.21%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.19%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.21%
Dividend growth of 0.21% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-52.12%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 18.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-57.63%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 345.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
72.62%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 119.07%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
16.03%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 107.87%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
10.46%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 100.69%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
89.65%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 229.84%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
1.26%
Below 50% of MU's 286.25%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
48.44%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 261.43%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
159.95%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 290.93%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
17.70%
Below 50% of MU's 288.88%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
170.91%
Below 50% of MU's 591.95%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
41.87%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 21.99%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
24.85%
Below 50% of MU's 77.80%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
2.50%
Below 50% of MU's 29.50%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1248.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1248.38% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
182.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 182.07% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
99.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 99.80% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
11.88%
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.
3.36%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.12%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.01%
BV/share growth of 0.01% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-0.09%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
8.68%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 5.03%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.33%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MU's 7.22%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.