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.
-10.89%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-14.65%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-17.85%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.75%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-14.51%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-13.94%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-13.77%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.77%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.76%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
7.68%
Dividend growth at 50-75% of MU's 15.07%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in returning cash to shareholders.
-26.17%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-45.60%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
92.58%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 212.28%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
35.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 9.41%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
43.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 37.28%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
131.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 674.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
15.09%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 19.21%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
19.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 70.22%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
812.98%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 666.59%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
520.08%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
88.83%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MU's 167.65%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
63.37%
Below 50% of MU's 498.10%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
53.31%
Below 50% of MU's 170.95%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
68.54%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 39.98%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
487.06%
Dividend/share CAGR of 487.06% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
99.82%
Dividend/share CAGR of 99.82% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
37.51%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 37.51% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-7.11%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
14.68%
Inventory growth well above MU's 18.37%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
4.41%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 1.51%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
1.26%
Similar to MU's 1.29%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
14.39%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.70%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MU's 8.54%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-0.46%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 6.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.