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%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-3.63%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-11.36%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.36%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-10.69%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-9.76%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-10.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.18%
Share reduction while ON is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.22%
Reduced diluted shares while ON is at 11.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
1.20%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while ON cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-38.66%
Negative OCF growth while ON is at 9.31%. 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 ON is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
47.21%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
60.39%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
839.85%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while ON is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
422.47%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 134.77%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
199.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ON's 148.44%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
243.23%
Positive 10Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
183.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 114.05%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
427.26%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 174.69%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
154.02%
Positive growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-3.52%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
10.46%
Below 50% of ON's 79.60%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
43.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 43.45% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
44.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 44.81% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
36.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 36.80% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.10%
AR growth well above ON's 11.30%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-2.12%
Inventory is declining while ON stands at 3.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-6.80%
Negative asset growth while ON invests at 5.44%. 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 ON shows 18.55%. 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%
We increase R&D while ON cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.94%
We cut SG&A while ON invests at 3.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.