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.
5.23%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.71%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
0.51%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
6.95%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
3.85%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
3.83%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
3.89%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.33%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.36%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.32%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.35%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-0.01%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-12.94%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-19.39%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
60.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 123.68%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
55.67%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MU's 59.96%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
20.69%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
353.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 134.47%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
269.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 63.02%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
77.37%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
233.16%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 352.04%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
169.17%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 261.84%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
36.82%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
21.69%
Below 50% of MU's 323.31%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
13.46%
Below 50% of MU's 201.14%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
1.85%
Below 50% of MU's 80.18%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
677.64%
Dividend/share CAGR of 677.64% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
167.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 167.94% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
64.02%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 64.02% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.02%
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.
-3.32%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.49%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 0.02%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
10.30%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 1.97%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-12.21%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.52%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 2.70%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
6.78%
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.