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.
-8.89%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-8.13%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-13.11%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-12.58%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-73.23%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-72.87%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-73.02%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.30%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.10%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
23.81%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
12.02%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
10.55%
FCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 2.29%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
46.89%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 6.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
42.24%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
21.89%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
88.82%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 1599.17%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
100.89%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to MRVL's 97.61%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
61.14%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 15.89%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-36.54%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is at 34.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
47.24%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-55.69%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
44.34%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MRVL's 44.05%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
6.56%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
5.71%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
516.71%
Dividend/share CAGR of 516.71% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
193.79%
Dividend/share CAGR of 193.79% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
82.37%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-18.91%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
2.57%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.21%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-5.64%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
13.79%
Debt growth of 13.79% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
2.93%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 2.30%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-0.73%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 83.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.