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.
3.98%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 6.48%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
-2.45%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 6.39%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-29.68%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 0.67%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-29.68%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 0.67%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
97.89%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.07%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
120.00%
EPS growth of 120.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
120.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 120.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-10.05%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.94%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-10.05%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.94%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-7.61%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
45.99%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
40.95%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-16.58%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 40.03%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-18.69%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 40.03%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-7.31%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 40.03%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
28.80%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-6.59%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
4.84%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
131.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-90.07%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-54.01%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
290.57%
Below 50% of MRVL's 933.31%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
58.71%
Below 50% of MRVL's 933.31%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
37.68%
Below 50% of MRVL's 933.31%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
10.87%
Dividend/share CAGR of 10.87% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
2.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2.63% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
8.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 8.23% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-2.08%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 20.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
0.37%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 1.01%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.60%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
8.39%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.24%
Debt growth of 0.24% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
2.72%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 10.20%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
4.75%
We expand SG&A while MRVL cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.