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.
17.22%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
31.76%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
80.61%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
122.45%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
106.92%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
104.76%
EPS growth of 104.76% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
110.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 110.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-0.95%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.31%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.23%
Dividend growth of 0.23% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
49.73%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 41.33%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
19.45%
FCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 47.49%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
61.72%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 1036.96%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
22.16%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 206.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-8.11%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 72.14%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
110.74%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 3394.12%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
22.04%
Below 50% of MRVL's 569.44%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
138.85%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 189.01%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
79.23%
Below 50% of MRVL's 1953.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
31.73%
Below 50% of MRVL's 394.37%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-8.03%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
59.53%
Below 50% of MRVL's 1337.19%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
0.89%
Below 50% of MRVL's 49.76%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-5.83%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MRVL is at 26.91%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
460.05%
Dividend/share CAGR of 460.05% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
428.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 428.42% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
260.00%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 260.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
15.35%
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.
4.99%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 3.86%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
3.41%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.56%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.42%
1.25-1.5x MRVL's 2.50%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.27%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
3.98%
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.