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.
-7.18%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 8.27%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-3.63%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 10.24%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.36%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 34.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.36%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 34.77%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-10.69%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 45.24%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-9.76%
Negative EPS growth while MU is at 50.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 35.75%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.18%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.22%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 8.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
1.20%
Dividend growth of 1.20% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-38.66%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 39.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-73.49%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
19.20%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
47.21%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
60.39%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 85.05%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
839.85%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
422.47%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
199.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 297.02%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
243.23%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
183.91%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
427.26%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 118.45%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
154.02%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 77.70%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-3.52%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
10.46%
Positive short-term equity growth while MU is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
43.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 43.45% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
44.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 44.81% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
36.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 36.80% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.10%
AR growth well above MU's 1.42%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-2.12%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-6.80%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.73%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-51.89%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.60%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 9.97%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-0.94%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 45.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.