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.
5.23%
Positive revenue growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.71%
Positive gross profit growth while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
0.51%
EBIT growth below 50% of MCHP's 17.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
6.95%
Operating income growth under 50% of MCHP's 35.84%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
3.85%
Net income growth under 50% of MCHP's 23.72%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
3.83%
EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 19.05%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
3.89%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MCHP's 20.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.33%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MCHP's 3.17%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.32%
Diluted share count expanding well above MCHP's 0.19%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-0.01%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-12.94%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 35.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-19.39%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 36.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
60.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 205.81%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
55.67%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 100.26%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
20.69%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MCHP's 24.79%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
353.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 181.94%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
269.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 125.69%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
77.37%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 34.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
233.16%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 3.37% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
169.17%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
36.82%
Positive short-term CAGR while MCHP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
21.69%
Below 50% of MCHP's 162.89%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
13.46%
Below 50% of MCHP's 113.99%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
1.85%
Below 50% of MCHP's 49.32%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
677.64%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 6.72%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
167.94%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 2.04%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
64.02%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 1.00%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
12.02%
Our AR growth while MCHP is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-3.32%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.49%
Positive asset growth while MCHP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
10.30%
Positive BV/share change while MCHP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-12.21%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.52%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
6.78%
We expand SG&A while MCHP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.