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.
2.06%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
4.38%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
10.11%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
9.21%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
7.23%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
6.98%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.94%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.21%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.31%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.06%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
62.24%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
76.64%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
101.87%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 308.22%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
27.36%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 35.19%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
20.00%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 84.95%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
336.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 603.93%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
164.88%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 135.14%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
79.90%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 318.67%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
578.69%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 249.76% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
118.39%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to MU's 110.74%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
70.62%
Below 50% of MU's 1652.21%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
24.55%
Below 50% of MU's 406.41%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-7.32%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MU is at 254.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-8.78%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MU is at 162.12%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
602.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 602.36% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
155.50%
Dividend/share CAGR of 155.50% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
102.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 102.39% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-1.46%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-2.44%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 13.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.34%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 6.49%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.17%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.10%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 50.94%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
0.26%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.45%
SG&A growth of 1.45% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.