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.
-7.18%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 6.41%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-3.63%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 21.35%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.36%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 83.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.36%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 83.11%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-10.69%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 96.49%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-9.76%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 96.45%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 96.45%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.18%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.22%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
1.20%
Dividend growth of 1.20% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-38.66%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-73.49%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
19.20%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
47.21%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
60.39%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
839.85%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
422.47%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
199.68%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
243.23%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
183.91%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
427.26%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 95.81%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
154.02%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 30.40%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-3.52%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
10.46%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
43.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 43.45% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
44.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 44.81% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
36.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 36.80% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.10%
AR growth well above LSCC's 7.70%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-2.12%
Inventory is declining while LSCC stands at 12.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-6.80%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-4.73%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 0.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-51.89%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.60%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.94%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.