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.
7.30%
Revenue growth above 1.5x ON's 1.87%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
8.98%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x ON's 6.88%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
18.97%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x ON's 14.04%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
18.97%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x ON's 14.04%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
18.22%
Net income growth comparable to ON's 17.22%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
16.67%
EPS growth similar to ON's 15.79%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
20.00%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x ON's 16.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
-0.35%
Share reduction while ON is at 0.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.07%
Reduced diluted shares while ON is at 1.96%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
98.97%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while ON cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
62.09%
Positive OCF growth while ON is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
93.07%
FCF growth similar to ON's 97.16%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
42.64%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
109.40%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
29.69%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
58.50%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while ON is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
206.80%
Positive OCF/share growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
117.86%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
161.17%
Below 50% of ON's 1840.80%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
748.99%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 220.09%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
69.80%
Below 50% of ON's 1674.81%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
174.56%
Positive growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
33.59%
Below 50% of ON's 83.14%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
13.44%
Below 50% of ON's 74.43%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
271.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 271.51% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
247.95%
Dividend/share CAGR of 247.95% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
281.54%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while ON cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
8.03%
Our AR growth while ON is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
1.06%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ON's 3.66%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.96%
Positive asset growth while ON is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.22%
Under 50% of ON's 15.17%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-100.00%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.18%
Our R&D shrinks while ON invests at 5.19%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.69%
We expand SG&A while ON cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.