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.
-0.63%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 5.63%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-0.43%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-2.53%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-0.40%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
9.72%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
10.53%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
10.71%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.21%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.53%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.21%
Dividend growth of 0.21% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-51.48%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-56.63%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
37.56%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 126.01%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
18.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 8.73%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
4.90%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 21.73%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
58.74%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 371.60%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
56.76%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 22.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
14.75%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 66.02%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
136.30%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 84.00% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
100.76%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
26.23%
Below 50% of MU's 156.27%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
4.46%
Below 50% of MU's 437.14%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-16.33%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MU is at 202.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-22.07%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MU is at 178.34%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
647.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 647.52% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
165.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 165.01% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
80.30%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 80.30% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
22.53%
AR growth well above MU's 7.01%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
0.10%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.08%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 1.56%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-12.98%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
6.76%
Debt growth far above MU's 5.30%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-2.33%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 2.73%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.21%
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.