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.
3.47%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
1.64%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
3.82%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
1.96%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
0.82%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
0.53%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1.08%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.11%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.09%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.11%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
20.60%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-126.40%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
80.64%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 65.50%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
21.37%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
41.12%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
152.14%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 36.50%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-17.56%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-17.95%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
216.94%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
31.88%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
25.88%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
74.95%
Below 50% of MU's 508.61%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
61.29%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 94.86%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
110.37%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 29.98%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
342.27%
Dividend/share CAGR of 342.27% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
99.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 99.75% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
37.90%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 37.90% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
4.21%
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.
13.41%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.88%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.46%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
10.79%
Debt growth far above MU's 18.31%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
4.84%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.74%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.