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.
12.28%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of LSCC's 14.13%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
13.83%
Gross profit growth at 75-90% of LSCC's 15.40%. Bill Ackman would demand operational improvements to match competitor gains.
24.58%
EBIT growth above 1.5x LSCC's 5.70%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
24.89%
Operating income growth above 1.5x LSCC's 5.70%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
18.19%
Net income growth above 1.5x LSCC's 10.11%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
23.46%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 16.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
24.05%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 16.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
-0.22%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 4.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.10%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x LSCC's 0.95%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.22%
Dividend growth of 0.22% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
32.18%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
39.85%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
46.99%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 69.24%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
21.16%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 35.50%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
24.02%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to LSCC's 25.03%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
407.30%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
41.89%
Positive OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
34.40%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
107.43%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
84.05%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
68.48%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
28.66%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
6.60%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
1.90%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
1149.23%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1149.23% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
194.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 194.94% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.78%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.78% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
7.34%
AR growth well above LSCC's 10.92%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-3.62%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.33%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.48%
Positive BV/share change while LSCC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.03%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
3.52%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.64%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 27.12%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.