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 ON is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
4.38%
Positive gross profit growth while ON is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
10.11%
Positive EBIT growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
9.21%
Positive operating income growth while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
7.23%
Positive net income growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
6.98%
Positive EPS growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.94%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.21%
Share reduction while ON is at 0.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.31%
Reduced diluted shares while ON is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.06%
Dividend reduction while ON stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
62.24%
Similar OCF growth to ON's 61.07%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
76.64%
FCF growth above 1.5x ON's 26.99%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
101.87%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 227.89%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
27.36%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 90.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
20.00%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 54.65%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
336.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x ON's 289.98%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
164.88%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 57.24%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
79.90%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of ON's 115.18%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
578.69%
Below 50% of ON's 3565.83%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
118.39%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x ON's 15.85%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
70.62%
Below 50% of ON's 308.53%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
24.55%
Below 50% of ON's 293.49%. 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 ON is at 118.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-8.78%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while ON is at 93.91%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
602.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 602.36% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
155.50%
Dividend/share CAGR of 155.50% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
102.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 102.39% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-1.46%
Firm’s AR is declining while ON shows 1.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-2.44%
Inventory is declining while ON stands at 3.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.34%
Negative asset growth while ON invests at 12.69%. 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 ON shows 2.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.10%
Debt shrinking faster vs. ON's 32.01%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
0.26%
We increase R&D while ON cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.45%
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.