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.
6.79%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.03%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
7.87%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MCHP's 3.62%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
20.72%
EBIT growth 50-75% of MCHP's 27.94%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
12.68%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of MCHP's 22.48%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
24.76%
Positive net income growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
24.49%
Positive EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
24.14%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.22%
Share count expansion well above MCHP's 0.38%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.32%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
13.33%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MCHP cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
47.26%
Positive OCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
47.49%
Positive FCF growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
47.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 266.94%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
40.65%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 105.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
16.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 36.30%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
120.33%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 164.64%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
63.52%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 74.95%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
18.07%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 6.88%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
128.52%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 1.43% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
122.19%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
425.94%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
12.26%
Below 50% of MCHP's 180.16%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
1.64%
Below 50% of MCHP's 129.52%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-4.74%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MCHP is at 58.40%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
681.02%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 7.50%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
167.12%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.62%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
64.37%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MCHP cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
1.58%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MCHP's 15.67%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-5.65%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
6.28%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
10.11%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
4.74%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.52%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MCHP's 2.16%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-2.21%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.