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.
91.94%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MCHP's 2.86%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
122.82%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
188.14%
Positive EBIT growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
188.14%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
560.71%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
589.13%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
589.13%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.32%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 5.40%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
3.74%
Diluted share count expanding well above MCHP's 5.40%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-0.32%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-54.39%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-88.70%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
43.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 110.37%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-15.35%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 110.37%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-11.62%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 110.37%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2204.86%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 115.84%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-32.61%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 115.84%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
39.09%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 77.23%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
104.35%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 77.23%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
-7.92%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 77.23%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
40.90%
Below 50% of MCHP's 268.15%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
63.10%
Below 50% of MCHP's 268.15%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
101.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 101.36% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-22.01%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
80.04%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 80.04% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.56%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-5.69%
Inventory is declining while MCHP stands at 6.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.04%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 2.29%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
3.01%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
20.71%
We increase R&D while MCHP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
8.55%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 2.66%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.