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.
2.24%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
47.23%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of MU's 65.66%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
83.58%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MU's 51.32%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
83.58%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MU's 51.32%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
67.24%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 53.80%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
72.41%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 54.17%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
72.41%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 54.17%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
18.75%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.28%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
18.75%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.25%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-13.45%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-62.05%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 808.20%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-67.65%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 167.24%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-45.13%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 137.55%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-35.18%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-24.61%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
1782.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 700.36%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-18.33%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 84.70%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
14.77%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 27.47%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
-148.33%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-123.65%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-112.54%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
216.59%
Below 50% of MU's 773.38%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
124.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 87.75%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
49.26%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MU's 47.58%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
-27.60%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-7.16%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-5.66%
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.
4.26%
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.
2.26%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.53%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-16.01%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.24%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
1.57%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MU's 47.00%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-11.96%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.