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.
6.98%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
11.21%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
25.22%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
25.22%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
27.21%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
30.95%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
28.57%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.39%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.43%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.53%
Dividend growth of 0.53% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
70.49%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
90.47%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
59.81%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 679.29%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
96.53%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 456.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
37.60%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 109.78%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
205.28%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 1751.49%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
226.83%
Below 50% of MRVL's 18720.53%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
98.43%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 254.73%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-50.56%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is at 82.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
397.85%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 104.50%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
68.28%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
92.20%
Below 50% of MRVL's 1194.79%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
21.10%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 25.30%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
5.44%
Below 50% of MRVL's 34.92%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
288.56%
Dividend/share CAGR of 288.56% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
278.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 278.60% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
286.61%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 286.61% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
6.64%
Our AR growth while MRVL is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
1.83%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.11%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 2.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.74%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 1.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.63%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 0.19%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.18%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MRVL's 32.81%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.