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.
12.28%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
13.83%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MRVL's 887.87%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
24.58%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 84.35%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
24.89%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 84.35%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
18.19%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 83.86%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
23.46%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 83.78%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
24.05%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 83.78%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.22%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.10%
Slight or no buyback while MRVL is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.22%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
32.18%
OCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 150.50%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
39.85%
FCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 651.60%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
46.99%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 77.80%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
21.16%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
24.02%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
407.30%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
41.89%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
34.40%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
107.43%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
84.05%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
68.48%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
28.66%
Below 50% of MRVL's 65.10%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
6.60%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 1.22%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
1.90%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
1149.23%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1149.23% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
194.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 194.94% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.78%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
7.34%
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.
-3.62%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.33%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.48%
Under 50% of MRVL's 8.55%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.03%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
3.52%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.64%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 3.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.