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.
2.66%
Revenue growth under 50% of MCHP's 10.82%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
11.13%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 15.09%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
26.01%
EBIT growth below 50% of MCHP's 140.04%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
26.01%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 132.00%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
30.36%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 87.97%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
25.00%
EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 70.34%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
25.00%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 70.34%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
8.46%
Share count expansion well above MCHP's 0.33%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
8.46%
Diluted share count expanding well above MCHP's 0.33%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-11.64%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 10.17%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
10.43%
OCF growth under 50% of MCHP's 33.85%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
36.00%
FCF growth similar to MCHP's 34.43%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
54.72%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MCHP's 51.09%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
23.99%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
19.32%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1572.62%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
250.38%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
41.03%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
2034.79%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.72%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 17.81%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
45.00%
Below 50% of MCHP's 175.02%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
-7.24%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MCHP invests at 81.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
13.12%
AR growth well above MCHP's 10.99%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
13.04%
We show growth while MCHP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.91%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-1.03%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.44%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.27%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 4.80%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.