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.
-3.77%
Negative revenue growth while ON stands at 50.31%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.59%
Negative gross profit growth while ON is at 2.02%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-25.49%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-26.18%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-29.30%
Negative net income growth while ON stands at 22.62%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-29.11%
Negative EPS growth while ON is at 21.43%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-28.57%
Negative diluted EPS growth while ON is at 14.29%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.43%
Share reduction while ON is at 1.71%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.42%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x ON's 3.68%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.43%
Dividend growth of 0.43% while ON is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-58.05%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-65.34%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
103.42%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
38.18%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 84.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
17.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 43.43%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
557.38%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 161.08%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
25.82%
Below 50% of ON's 75.69%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-8.46%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
339.00%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 118.37% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
54.62%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 30.79%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
14.40%
Below 50% of ON's 149.95%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
23.29%
Below 50% of ON's 235.14%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
27.79%
Below 50% of ON's 520.66%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
21.98%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 5.62%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
526.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 526.91% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
332.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 332.92% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
30.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 30.81% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
3.29%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. ON's 102.55%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
10.39%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ON's 112.72%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.68%
Negative asset growth while ON invests at 37.60%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.75%
Under 50% of ON's 6.94%. 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.
7.65%
R&D dropping or stable vs. ON's 53.37%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
1.54%
SG&A declining or stable vs. ON's 38.05%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.