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.
-7.00%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-6.56%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.77%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-1.89%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
4.76%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
3.90%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
5.26%
Diluted EPS growth of 5.26% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-0.82%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.77%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
11.84%
Dividend growth of 11.84% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
1.49%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-0.31%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
40.82%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 74.73%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
4.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 55.66%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
17.82%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 75.14%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
149.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 106.57%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
34.74%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 3.09%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
45.06%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 118.59%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
102.44%
Below 50% of MU's 567.13%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
2.85%
Below 50% of MU's 48.45%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
248.52%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of MU's 285.10%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
32.16%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 28.45%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
10.44%
Below 50% of MU's 65.34%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-0.13%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MU is at 52.58%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
1175.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1175.51% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
192.39%
Dividend/share CAGR of 192.39% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
80.78%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 80.78% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-21.34%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-4.52%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.87%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.58%
BV/share growth of 0.58% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-0.29%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-3.16%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-6.68%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 0.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.