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.
6.47%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
13.31%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
37.52%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
-6.84%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-4.70%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-5.08%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-3.45%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.63%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.54%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.31%
Dividend growth under 50% of MRVL's 1.50%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
70.77%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
77.99%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
100.90%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 396.79%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
13.95%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 10.01%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
-6.30%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 9.64%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
254.02%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 888.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
30.17%
Below 50% of MRVL's 491.17%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-5.66%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
120.73%
Below 50% of MRVL's 874.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
32.93%
Below 50% of MRVL's 1242.14%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-20.90%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
51.69%
Below 50% of MRVL's 105.68%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
30.26%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 51.07%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
19.84%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 28.41%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
1205.79%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1205.79% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
179.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 179.73% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
132.68%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 132.68% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.21%
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.
0.35%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.79%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.48%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.08%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.40%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-1.27%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.