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.
-0.63%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-0.43%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-2.53%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-0.40%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
9.72%
Positive net income growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
10.53%
Positive EPS growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
10.71%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.21%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.53%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.21%
Dividend growth of 0.21% while ON is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-51.48%
Negative OCF growth while ON is at 81.03%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-56.63%
Negative FCF growth while ON is at 264.39%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
37.56%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 142.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
18.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 54.18%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
4.90%
Positive 3Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
58.74%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with ON's 58.06%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
56.76%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of ON's 108.87%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
14.75%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
136.30%
Positive 10Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
100.76%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
26.23%
Positive short-term CAGR while ON is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
4.46%
Below 50% of ON's 214.03%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-16.33%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while ON is at 110.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-22.07%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while ON is at 66.34%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
647.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 647.52% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
165.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 165.01% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
80.30%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 80.30% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
22.53%
Our AR growth while ON is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
0.10%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ON's 1.58%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-4.08%
Negative asset growth while ON invests at 11.81%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-12.98%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
6.76%
Debt shrinking faster vs. ON's 31.01%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-2.33%
Our R&D shrinks while ON invests at 1.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.21%
SG&A growth well above ON's 2.21%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.