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.
0.06%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 7.14%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.03%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 6.09%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
6.44%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 23.31%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
6.44%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 23.31%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
3.80%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 26.04%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
5.13%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 25.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
5.26%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 22.53%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.23%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.50%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
194294.01%
Dividend growth of 194294.01% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-40.03%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-47.18%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-5.84%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 264.72%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
28.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 264.72%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
70.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 248.44%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
61.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 1376.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
49.82%
Below 50% of MRVL's 1376.79%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
24.02%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 84.16%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
112.59%
Similar net income/share CAGR to MRVL's 111.27%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
11.83%
Below 50% of MRVL's 111.27%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
213.01%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 146.66%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
175.31%
Positive growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
2.48%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
13.01%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 6.44%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
37.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 37.38% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
40.20%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.20% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.49%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.49% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.94%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 5.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
9.93%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 19.37%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.53%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 4.32%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.79%
Under 50% of MRVL's 4.95%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
84.64%
Debt growth far above MRVL's 8.49%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-5.12%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 4.82%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.17%
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.