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.
-3.77%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-7.59%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-25.49%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-26.18%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-29.30%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-29.11%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-28.57%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.43%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.42%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.43%
Dividend growth of 0.43% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-58.05%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-65.34%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
103.42%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
38.18%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 10.50%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
17.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MU's 16.40%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
557.38%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
25.82%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 15.03%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-8.46%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 110.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
339.00%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
54.62%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 65.45%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
14.40%
Below 50% of MU's 146.94%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
23.29%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
27.79%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
21.98%
Positive short-term equity growth while MU is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
526.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 526.91% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
332.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 332.92% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
30.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 30.81% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
3.29%
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.
10.39%
Inventory growth well above MU's 6.89%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-0.68%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.75%
Under 50% of MU's 19.57%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.65%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.54%
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.