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.
2.31%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 14.70%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
3.64%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 177.18%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
12.92%
EBIT growth below 50% of MU's 52.36%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
10.33%
Operating income growth under 50% of MU's 52.36%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
34.92%
Net income growth at 50-75% of MU's 48.09%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
33.33%
EPS growth at 50-75% of MU's 55.24%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
33.33%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of MU's 55.24%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-29.56%
Share reduction while MU is at 16.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-27.87%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 13.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
41.96%
Dividend growth of 41.96% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-48.82%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 295.67%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-112.03%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 276.37%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
3.06%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 423.37%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-24.01%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MU stands at 100.62%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-27.73%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-52.04%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 51.08%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
385.77%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
143.28%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
73.69%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
48.33%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
145.52%
Below 50% of MU's 337.53%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
49.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MU's 52.25%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
83.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 83.48% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
77.18%
Dividend/share CAGR of 77.18% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-2.22%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MU invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
7.14%
Our AR growth while MU is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
3.72%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 23.81%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.20%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 44.78%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
45.27%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 20.69%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-3.48%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 98.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
10.68%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-1.52%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 4.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.