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.
-8.74%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-1.10%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
3.79%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
8.77%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-11.07%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-11.54%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-15.38%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.62%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.04%
Slight or no buyback while MRVL is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.42%
Dividend growth of 0.42% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-53.76%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-57.70%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
183.96%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 779.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
23.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 40.64%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
66.90%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
152.15%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 1137.67%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
2.25%
Below 50% of MRVL's 246.66%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
99.54%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 28.03%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
1259.23%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 198.55% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-35.21%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 78.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
1638.85%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 97.59%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
55.33%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MRVL's 53.05%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
23.79%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 40.98%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
34.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 30.42%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
776.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 776.07% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
324.16%
Dividend/share CAGR of 324.16% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
54.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 54.27% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.34%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
3.64%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 21.86%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-2.38%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.47%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-5.49%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.38%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 4.62%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
4.05%
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.