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.
-5.68%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.25%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-16.28%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-15.24%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-14.95%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-12.50%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-13.75%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.46%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.52%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.88%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.31%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-61.75%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-66.59%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
42.07%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 114.47%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
2.81%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 5.10%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
14.67%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 2.19%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
54.64%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
22.90%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
67.10%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
91.38%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
23.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
116.01%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
37.06%
Below 50% of MRVL's 114.72%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
7.25%
Below 50% of MRVL's 35.56%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-1.77%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MRVL is at 17.12%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
1156.44%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1156.44% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
190.22%
Dividend/share CAGR of 190.22% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
81.56%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 81.56% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.93%
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.
6.74%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 10.29%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-3.35%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-1.19%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.05%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.23%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
8.89%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 7.39%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.