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.
-5.74%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 11.10%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.15%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MCHP's 14.34%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-20.25%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
2.69%
Positive operating income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-16.12%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-17.24%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-14.29%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.33%
Share reduction while MCHP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.36%
Reduced diluted shares while MCHP is at 3.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.95%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 13.45%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-59.92%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 9.84%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-77.51%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 27.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-9.32%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 266.65%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
3.28%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 60.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
81.70%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 46.08%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
96.01%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 448.61%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
24.83%
Below 50% of MCHP's 114.05%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
97.36%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 519.73%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
56.05%
Below 50% of MCHP's 353.85%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-6.33%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 76.51%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
1308.11%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 91.83%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
217.61%
Below 50% of MCHP's 1006.25%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
1.99%
Below 50% of MCHP's 184.26%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
12.23%
Below 50% of MCHP's 32.94%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
63.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 63.26% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
17.88%
Dividend/share CAGR of 17.88% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.81% while MCHP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.88%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-7.69%
Negative asset growth while MCHP invests at 1.39%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-7.64%
We have a declining book value while MCHP shows 2.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.58%
We’re deleveraging while MCHP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.43%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 5.34%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-4.97%
We cut SG&A while MCHP invests at 9.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.