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.
0.56%
Revenue growth under 50% of ON's 5.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.22%
Negative gross profit growth while ON is at 2.04%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-0.70%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-1.65%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
0.17%
Positive net income growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
1.21%
Positive EPS growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
0.82%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.76%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.75%
Reduced diluted shares while ON is at 0.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.09%
Dividend reduction while ON stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
56.45%
OCF growth under 50% of ON's 138.21%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
68.74%
FCF growth under 50% of ON's 313.89%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
91.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 217.37%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
37.79%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of ON's 53.74%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
42.33%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of ON's 48.33%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
184.81%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 8745.78%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
73.82%
Below 50% of ON's 197.87%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
42.20%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 286.88%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
262.30%
Below 50% of ON's 2520.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
93.27%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of ON's 179.84%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
64.93%
Below 50% of ON's 580.33%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
57.46%
Below 50% of ON's 293.01%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
42.87%
Below 50% of ON's 149.33%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
65.35%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to ON's 64.44%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
570.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 570.52% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
129.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 129.76% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
49.28%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 49.28% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-6.85%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
9.32%
Inventory growth well above ON's 0.78%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
5.40%
Asset growth above 1.5x ON's 2.89%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.73%
50-75% of ON's 5.24%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
9.57%
We have some new debt while ON reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
4.11%
We increase R&D while ON cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.13%
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.