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.
-6.66%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 2.71%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.81%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 6.37%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-18.38%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.60%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-18.76%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-17.86%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-17.86%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.91%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.81%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
6.82%
Dividend growth of 6.82% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
4.17%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
6.33%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
160.86%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 105.34%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
43.38%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 78.72%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-7.30%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 24.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
168.15%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 1071.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
26.50%
Below 50% of LSCC's 588.71%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
5.20%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
137.70%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 118.52%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
463.32%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 145.35%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-41.46%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
117.37%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
36.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 50.93%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
11.74%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 23.30%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
2060.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2060.94% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
172.72%
Dividend/share CAGR of 172.72% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
129.94%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 129.94% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-21.06%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
0.29%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. LSCC's 9.28%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.59%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 0.26%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.31%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 1.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.06%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.98%
Our R&D shrinks while LSCC invests at 10.25%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.86%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 4.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.