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.
2.60%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.39%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
3.58%
Gross profit growth at 75-90% of MRVL's 4.27%. Bill Ackman would demand operational improvements to match competitor gains.
5.30%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 29.54%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
5.43%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 29.54%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
6.10%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 39.60%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
6.45%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 35.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
6.56%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 42.11%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.99%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 1.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.94%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.43%
Dividend growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 0.81%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in returning cash to shareholders.
34.65%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
43.00%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
57.57%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 238.42%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
7.99%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 82.08%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
6.84%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 27.37%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
56.58%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 208.85%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
70.44%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 4.42%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
33.92%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
75.01%
Below 50% of MRVL's 407.40%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
5.73%
Below 50% of MRVL's 188.00%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
72.03%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
40.58%
Below 50% of MRVL's 125.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
22.21%
Below 50% of MRVL's 56.04%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
0.82%
Below 50% of MRVL's 17.36%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1263.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1263.46% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
181.31%
Dividend/share CAGR of 181.31% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
100.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 100.13% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.87%
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.
2.22%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 12.35%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.07%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 3.22%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.60%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 2.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.30%
Debt growth of 5.30% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-5.33%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
7.06%
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.