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.
4.40%
Positive revenue growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.54%
Positive gross profit growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-2.20%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 37.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.95%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 37.56%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
1.99%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 52.95%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
1.65%
EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 45.45%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
1.67%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 45.45%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.22%
Share count expansion well above LSCC's 0.05%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.22%
Slight or no buyback while LSCC is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.05%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
54.47%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
319.48%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
36.34%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 7.08%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
7.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 16.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-15.54%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
138.05%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-10.13%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-25.04%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
93.78%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 64.80%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
-11.27%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is 154.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-40.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC is 2.76%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
93.15%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 41.77%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
108.41%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 127.56%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
56.21%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 74.41%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
330.83%
Dividend/share CAGR of 330.83% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
68.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.63% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
27.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 27.31% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.39%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 18.88%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
0.56%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. LSCC's 6.47%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.47%
Asset growth well under 50% of LSCC's 1.46%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.14%
Under 50% of LSCC's 2.32%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.10%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 50.20%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.18%
We increase R&D while LSCC cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.20%
We expand SG&A while LSCC cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.