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.
5.20%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 8.12%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
-6.44%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 11.15%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-6.41%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 10.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-6.41%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 10.77%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
0.69%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 14.89%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
-5.26%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 14.98%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-5.26%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 14.98%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.57%
Share change of 0.57% while MCHP is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.27%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
2.54%
Dividend growth of 2.54% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
4.31%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-94.07%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 55.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
137.93%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 41.10%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
76.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 41.10%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
71.38%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 41.10%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-9.01%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 12.83%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
42.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 12.83%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
665.18%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 52.32% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
548.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 52.32%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
257.19%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 52.32%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
128.96%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 81.72%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
49.99%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 81.72%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
98.79%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 81.72%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
4.56%
Dividend/share CAGR of 4.56% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
23.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 23.92% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.96%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.96% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.71%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
6.77%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 7.77%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.61%
Asset growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 11.19%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
5.79%
Under 50% of MCHP's 12.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-6.21%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 15.69%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
40.00%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 4.08%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.