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.
2.60%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
3.58%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
5.30%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
5.43%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
6.10%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
6.45%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
6.56%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.99%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.94%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.43%
Dividend growth of 0.43% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
34.65%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
43.00%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
57.57%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 91.92%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
7.99%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 67.66%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
6.84%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 84.43%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
56.58%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 144.40%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
70.44%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 22.80%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
33.92%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 99.44%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
75.01%
Below 50% of MU's 377.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
5.73%
Below 50% of MU's 101.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
72.03%
Below 50% of MU's 481.56%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
40.58%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 26.70%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
22.21%
Below 50% of MU's 75.06%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
0.82%
Below 50% of MU's 41.36%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1263.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1263.46% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
181.31%
Dividend/share CAGR of 181.31% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
100.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 100.13% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.87%
AR growth well above MU's 3.68%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
2.22%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.07%
Asset growth well under 50% of MU's 5.66%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.60%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.30%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 16.13%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-5.33%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 0.80%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
7.06%
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.