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.
-1.33%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.24%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-53.58%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-55.16%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-50.42%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-50.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-49.02%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.70%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.35%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
31.32%
Dividend growth of 31.32% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-14.67%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-13.44%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
169.55%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 703.00%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
27.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 60.72%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
54.82%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
75.33%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 4443.08%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
48.49%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 58.23%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
-2.06%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 39.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
461.83%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 138.02% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-42.35%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 99.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
214.05%
Below 50% of MRVL's 15592.46%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
29.85%
Positive growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
24.58%
Below 50% of MRVL's 58.22%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
32.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 47.37%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
655.09%
Dividend/share CAGR of 655.09% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
330.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 330.01% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
54.35%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 54.35% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.40%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-9.01%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 7.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.96%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.03%
Under 50% of MRVL's 5.85%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-3.60%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
20.00%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 6.14%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
14.43%
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.