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.
-7.00%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-6.56%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.77%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-1.89%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
4.76%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
3.90%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
5.26%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.82%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.77%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
11.84%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.30%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
1.49%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-0.31%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
40.82%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 164.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
4.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 23.64%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
17.82%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 31.16%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
149.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with MRVL's 140.64%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
34.74%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
45.06%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 155.54%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
102.44%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 56.15% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
2.85%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
248.52%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 14.98%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
32.16%
Below 50% of MRVL's 116.41%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
10.44%
Below 50% of MRVL's 41.51%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-0.13%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MRVL is at 16.60%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
1175.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1175.51% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
192.39%
Dividend/share CAGR of 192.39% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
80.78%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 80.78% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-21.34%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-4.52%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.87%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 0.61%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.58%
Under 50% of MRVL's 2.29%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.29%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-3.16%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-6.68%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 5.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.