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.
8.81%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.81%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
15.53%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
15.39%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
15.19%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
15.71%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
14.49%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.32%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.20%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.06%
Dividend growth of 0.06% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
95.43%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
115.37%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
37.03%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 52.93%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
9.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 23.99%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
18.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 38.47%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
158.94%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
95.19%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
74.36%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 219.77%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-46.89%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
40.42%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
36.42%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MU's 66.74%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
20.58%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 12.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
5.27%
Below 50% of MU's 38.23%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-1.05%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MU is at 66.33%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
1158.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1158.01% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
193.41%
Dividend/share CAGR of 193.41% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.90%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.90% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
6.23%
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.
3.93%
Inventory growth well above MU's 7.10%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.04%
Asset growth well under 50% of MU's 1.77%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.17%
BV/share growth of 2.17% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-12.29%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 3.22%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.90%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.95%
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.