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.
-7.99%
Negative revenue growth while ON stands at 3.43%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-8.87%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-18.98%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.98%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-12.32%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-9.09%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-9.26%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-3.28%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-3.79%
Reduced diluted shares while ON is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.35%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-54.95%
Negative OCF growth while ON is at 36.63%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-66.02%
Negative FCF growth while ON is at 73.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
75.89%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
88.01%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
41.12%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 15.96%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1774.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 85.97%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
311.93%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of ON's 584.46%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
57.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 214.33%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
6975.22%
Positive 10Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
612.67%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 139.08%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
106.47%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 16.81%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
93.88%
Below 50% of ON's 15135.59%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
15.72%
Below 50% of ON's 181.25%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
6.14%
Below 50% of ON's 255.88%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
373.82%
Dividend/share CAGR of 373.82% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
352.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 352.76% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
296.48%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while ON cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-4.19%
Firm’s AR is declining while ON shows 40.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
11.28%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ON's 64.35%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-2.60%
Negative asset growth while ON invests at 75.40%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
2.17%
Under 50% of ON's 2816.89%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.98%
R&D dropping or stable vs. ON's 13.84%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.08%
SG&A declining or stable vs. ON's 7.59%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.