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.
6.79%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MU's 11.36%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
7.87%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 17.30%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
20.72%
EBIT growth 50-75% of MU's 30.29%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
12.68%
Operating income growth under 50% of MU's 30.29%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
24.76%
Net income growth comparable to MU's 23.04%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
24.49%
EPS growth similar to MU's 23.61%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
24.14%
Similar diluted EPS growth to MU's 22.54%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
0.22%
Share change of 0.22% while MU is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.32%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.18%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
13.33%
Dividend growth of 13.33% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
47.26%
OCF growth above 1.5x MU's 12.26%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
47.49%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
47.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 149.83%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
40.65%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 60.50%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
16.50%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
120.33%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with MU's 116.86%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
63.52%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 110.36%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
18.07%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
128.52%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 197.11%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
122.19%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 100.14%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
425.94%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
12.26%
Below 50% of MU's 400.06%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
1.64%
Below 50% of MU's 202.44%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-4.74%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MU is at 109.04%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
681.02%
Dividend/share CAGR of 681.02% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
167.12%
Dividend/share CAGR of 167.12% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
64.37%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 64.37% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
1.58%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MU's 8.58%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-5.65%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 3.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
6.28%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 3.22%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
10.11%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 3.11%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
4.74%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.52%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.21%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 6.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.