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.
-4.30%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 9.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.22%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 10.89%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
15.97%
EBIT growth similar to MCHP's 14.71%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
15.09%
Operating income growth similar to MCHP's 14.71%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
-6.77%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 15.63%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.56%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 10.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-2.63%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 21.10%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.73%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 3.28%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
17.08%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
4.95%
Dividend growth of 4.95% while MCHP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
34.22%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MCHP's 24.61%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
-197.20%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 237.71%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
29.76%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 236.32%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-26.65%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 138.35%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
12.01%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 61.26%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-2.10%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 726.96%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
7.60%
Below 50% of MCHP's 632.95%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
24.27%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 194.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
953.20%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 327.63% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
90.10%
Below 50% of MCHP's 180.75%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
299.75%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 97.60%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
302.95%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 595.51%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
168.64%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 282.73%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
91.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 111.16%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
21.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 21.42% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-2.02%
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.
-2.13%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MCHP invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-6.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 19.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
9.89%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 2.24%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-3.38%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 28.52%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.45%
Under 50% of MCHP's 31.94%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-3.74%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-17.26%
Our R&D shrinks while MCHP invests at 2.90%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-11.48%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 8.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.