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.
2.41%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 3.41%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
-0.40%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 4.40%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
3.22%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
3.22%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-11.18%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-10.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-10.20%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.53%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.02%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.52%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.02%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.23%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-19.03%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-41.00%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
83.22%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 663.02%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
87.61%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 344.08%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
27.99%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 101.35%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
99.01%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
79.80%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-22.36%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
1239.80%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
536.36%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
15.83%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
98.52%
Below 50% of MRVL's 794.34%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
19.49%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 32.55%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
7.75%
Below 50% of MRVL's 27.86%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
373.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 373.94% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
367.18%
Dividend/share CAGR of 367.18% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
298.29%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 298.29% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.51%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 24.53%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
4.63%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 10.17%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.36%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.83%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.17%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-5.06%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 0.88%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.61%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 17.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.