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.
6.07%
Revenue growth similar to ON's 5.89%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
7.06%
Gross profit growth similar to ON's 7.50%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
12.90%
EBIT growth 50-75% of ON's 22.52%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
13.14%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of ON's 22.52%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
11.74%
Net income growth above 1.5x ON's 7.47%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
12.59%
EPS growth above 1.5x ON's 8.33%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
12.86%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x ON's 8.57%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.82%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.80%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.16%
Dividend growth of 0.16% while ON is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
15.33%
OCF growth under 50% of ON's 33.41%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
10.08%
FCF growth under 50% of ON's 107.84%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
69.30%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 148.55%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
48.57%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 127.56%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
30.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 65.78%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
169.40%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ON's 150.98%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
106.95%
Below 50% of ON's 531.45%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
57.28%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 171.45%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
275.27%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 155.66% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
182.32%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of ON's 240.22%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
107.02%
Below 50% of ON's 250.48%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
40.20%
Below 50% of ON's 174.74%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
7.63%
Below 50% of ON's 128.46%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
10.99%
Below 50% of ON's 98.35%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
518.41%
Dividend/share CAGR of 518.41% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
121.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 121.07% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
82.03%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 82.03% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.19%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. ON's 4.89%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
1.24%
We show growth while ON is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.25%
Asset growth well under 50% of ON's 1.54%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.29%
We have a declining book value while ON shows 3.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.02%
We have some new debt while ON reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
1.56%
We increase R&D while ON cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-10.20%
We cut SG&A while ON invests at 0.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.