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.
-3.16%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-4.91%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
133.15%
EBIT growth similar to ON's 128.69%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
184.17%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x ON's 128.69%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
37.12%
Net income growth under 50% of ON's 116.35%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
39.13%
EPS growth under 50% of ON's 116.13%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
39.13%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of ON's 116.13%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.54%
Share reduction while ON is at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.09%
Reduced diluted shares while ON is at 0.87%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.74%
Dividend reduction while ON stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-66.82%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-72.09%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
98.72%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
5.70%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of ON's 6.93%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
0.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 14.42%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
177.32%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with ON's 190.74%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
-32.68%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-43.52%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
367.16%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 128.98% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-34.45%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-38.72%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
54.13%
Below 50% of ON's 178.41%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
33.19%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
24.41%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to ON's 23.45%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
846.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 846.73% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
109.10%
Dividend/share CAGR of 109.10% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
73.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 73.43% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.37%
AR growth well above ON's 2.63%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-3.24%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.81%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.46%
Under 50% of ON's 1.46%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.05%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.41%
Our R&D shrinks while ON invests at 0.23%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
6.74%
We expand SG&A while ON cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.