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.
4.40%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 23.23%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
5.54%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 3182.86%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-2.20%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 97.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.95%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 97.07%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
1.99%
Net income growth under 50% of MU's 164.26%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
1.65%
EPS growth under 50% of MU's 164.29%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
1.67%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MU's 163.39%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.22%
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.
0.22%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MU's 1.27%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-0.05%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
54.47%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
319.48%
FCF growth above 1.5x MU's 58.23%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
36.34%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MU's 36.15%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
7.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 0.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-15.54%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
138.05%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-10.13%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-25.04%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
93.78%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 4.16% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-11.27%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-40.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 33.42%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
93.15%
Below 50% of MU's 353.70%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
108.41%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 28.06%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
56.21%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 9.45%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
330.83%
Dividend/share CAGR of 330.83% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
68.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.63% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
27.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 27.31% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.39%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MU's 45.97%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
0.56%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 2.02%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.47%
Asset growth well under 50% of MU's 3.05%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.14%
Under 50% of MU's 3.46%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.10%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 1.94%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.18%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.20%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MU's 6.46%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.