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.
-9.23%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 12.55%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-17.32%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 12.39%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
17.79%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 1442.11%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
17.79%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 1442.11%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
40.61%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 188.14%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
36.36%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
36.36%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 100.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-6.67%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 45.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-6.67%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 7.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
7.15%
Dividend growth of 7.15% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-43.00%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 46.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-90.98%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-22.52%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-30.24%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-18.27%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
23879.66%
OCF/share CAGR of 23879.66% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
98.23%
OCF/share CAGR of 98.23% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-44.59%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
26.28%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 26.28% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
27.72%
Net income/share CAGR of 27.72% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
-166.64%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
283.66%
Equity/share CAGR of 283.66% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
154.84%
Equity/share CAGR of 154.84% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
78.94%
Equity/share CAGR of 78.94% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
-68.64%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
1.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.81% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
1.65%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 1.65% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.03%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 46.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-16.82%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-8.73%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 6.05%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.32%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
1.53%
We have some new debt while MRVL reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-13.11%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 20.79%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-22.00%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 0.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.