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.
10.39%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
12.03%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
24.89%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
24.89%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
20.16%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
19.05%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
19.05%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.79%
Share count expansion well above MU's 1.48%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-1.12%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 1.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.76%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
28.75%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
1975.00%
FCF growth above 1.5x MU's 529.63%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
7.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 63.83%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
22.96%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
61.53%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
45.01%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 61.36%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
48.79%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 55.29%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
-12.33%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 628.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
99.88%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
21.43%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
327.27%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 70.41%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
287.62%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 334.55%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
68.15%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 12.61%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
-0.31%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
81.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 81.51% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.12%
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.
1.53%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 1.53% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
15.02%
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.
11.93%
Inventory growth well above MU's 9.27%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.68%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.11%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-4.70%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 5.81%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.05%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 0.80%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.93%
We expand SG&A while MU cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.