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.
4.40%
Positive revenue growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.54%
Positive gross profit growth while ON is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-2.20%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.95%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
1.99%
Positive net income growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
1.65%
Positive EPS growth while ON is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1.67%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ON is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.22%
Share count expansion well above ON's 0.23%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.22%
Slight or no buyback while ON is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.05%
Dividend reduction while ON stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
54.47%
Positive OCF growth while ON is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
319.48%
Positive FCF growth while ON is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
36.34%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 135.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
7.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of ON's 23.59%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-15.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ON stands at 3.57%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
138.05%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with ON's 145.60%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
-10.13%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while ON is at 56.19%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-25.04%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
93.78%
Below 50% of ON's 269.46%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-11.27%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ON is 218.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-40.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ON is 83.11%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
93.15%
Below 50% of ON's 433.56%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
108.41%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of ON's 144.49%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
56.21%
Below 50% of ON's 119.65%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
330.83%
Dividend/share CAGR of 330.83% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
68.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.63% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
27.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 27.31% while ON is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.39%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. ON's 23.35%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
0.56%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. ON's 3.61%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.47%
Asset growth well under 50% of ON's 1.30%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.14%
Under 50% of ON's 2.41%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.10%
We’re deleveraging while ON stands at 8.45%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.18%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. ON's 4.33%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.20%
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.