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.
6.86%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
7.84%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
55.61%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
50.63%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
68.30%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
65.22%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
72.73%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.26%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.94%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.26%
Dividend growth of 0.26% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
50.33%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 42.08%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
52.89%
FCF growth under 50% of MU's 162.12%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
157.09%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 95.53%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
22.78%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 13.29%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
50.86%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 63.91%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
190.70%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 531.39%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-5.25%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 56.43%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
34.69%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to MU's 33.33%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
682.46%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-7.84%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
90.65%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 76.51%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
63.47%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
22.37%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
34.60%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MU's 33.58%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
643.71%
Dividend/share CAGR of 643.71% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
113.74%
Dividend/share CAGR of 113.74% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
55.92%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 55.92% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
10.22%
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.
1.73%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.44%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.05%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-11.01%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 9.25%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.70%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-1.30%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 15.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.