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.
0.23%
Revenue growth under 50% of MPWR's 2.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.51%
Negative gross profit growth while MPWR is at 4.73%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-13.11%
Negative EBIT growth while MPWR is at 25.06%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-10.06%
Negative operating income growth while MPWR is at 25.06%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-10.57%
Negative net income growth while MPWR stands at 57.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-8.77%
Negative EPS growth while MPWR is at 60.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-8.93%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MPWR is at 60.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.04%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.95%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.30%
Dividend reduction while MPWR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
80.35%
Positive OCF growth while MPWR is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
166.20%
Positive FCF growth while MPWR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
173.88%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MPWR's 176.00%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
21.32%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MPWR's 72.00%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
16.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MPWR's 9.21%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
397.80%
OCF/share CAGR of 397.80% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
257.54%
Positive OCF/share growth while MPWR is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
23.30%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MPWR's 158.51%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
850.50%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MPWR's 198.57% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
12.70%
Below 50% of MPWR's 358.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
21.68%
Positive short-term CAGR while MPWR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
39.50%
Equity/share CAGR of 39.50% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
20.69%
Below 50% of MPWR's 128.78%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
24.51%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MPWR's 47.72%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
484.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 484.42% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
323.55%
Dividend/share CAGR of 323.55% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
28.78%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 28.78% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
6.70%
Our AR growth while MPWR is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
11.52%
We show growth while MPWR is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
22.28%
Asset growth above 1.5x MPWR's 1.52%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.19%
Under 50% of MPWR's 5.15%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
65.84%
Debt growth of 65.84% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-6.84%
Our R&D shrinks while MPWR invests at 4.94%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-5.60%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.