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.
-1.49%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 7.95%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.01%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 11.39%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-1.42%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 63.14%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
0.44%
Operating income growth under 50% of LSCC's 63.14%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-4.70%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 83.05%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.35%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.35%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 66.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.46%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.62%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.54%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 1.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.15%
Dividend growth of 0.15% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-61.47%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-64.74%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
62.88%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to LSCC's 58.24%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
68.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 121.07%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-5.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC stands at 18.54%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
88.46%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
117.10%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-3.34%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 187.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
112.73%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 170.08%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
3278.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 306.62%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-21.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC is 11.22%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
40.88%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
36.00%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 59.76%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
8.43%
Below 50% of LSCC's 25.01%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1308.17%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1308.17% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
171.86%
Dividend/share CAGR of 171.86% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
129.32%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 129.32% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.64%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 33.12%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-0.98%
Inventory is declining while LSCC stands at 25.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.02%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 6.40%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.28%
We have a declining book value while LSCC shows 4.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
9.58%
Debt growth of 9.58% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
5.78%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.90%
SG&A declining or stable vs. LSCC's 9.08%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.