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.
6.71%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 21.15%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
1.74%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MRVL's 15.71%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-18.30%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 70.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.30%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 70.62%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
3.42%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 69.85%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.42%
Share count expansion well above MRVL's 0.67%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
3.42%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 0.67%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-3.31%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
92.86%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
237.50%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-16.43%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 71.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-2.34%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 71.82%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-18.48%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 71.82%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
23.60%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
10.68%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-41.48%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-18.75%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
110.54%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-90.75%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
285.08%
Below 50% of MRVL's 574.71%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
66.14%
Below 50% of MRVL's 574.71%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-14.43%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MRVL is at 574.71%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
15.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.94% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
1.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.45% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
7.83%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 7.83% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.49%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 24.53%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
13.38%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 123.71%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.66%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 1.28%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
-1.39%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-12.30%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 5.41%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
3.92%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 9.77%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
8.97%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 8.12%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.