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.
1.55%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 12.37%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.04%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 22.32%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-5.71%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 37.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-3.85%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 42.84%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-2.16%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 110.82%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.27%
Negative EPS growth while MU is at 110.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-1.54%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 111.39%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.22%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.33%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.06%
Dividend growth under 50% of MU's 1.28%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-57.51%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-134.00%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
48.25%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 83.42%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
25.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 68.69%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-15.86%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 14.11%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
60.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 96.25%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
2.07%
Below 50% of MU's 60.73%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-59.84%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
106.27%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 79.56%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
2.74%
Below 50% of MU's 279.48%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-45.67%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
81.59%
Below 50% of MU's 285.94%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
117.02%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 27.75%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
18.72%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 2.67%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
299.12%
Dividend/share CAGR of 299.12% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
50.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 50.60% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
18.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR similar to MU's 17.81%. Walter Schloss finds parallel short-term dividend strategies for both companies.
77.72%
AR growth well above MU's 12.21%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
3.53%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.93%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 2.95%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.73%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 3.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-5.50%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
5.30%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.83%
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.