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.
6.07%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 1.91%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
7.06%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.45%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
12.90%
EBIT growth 50-75% of MRVL's 20.53%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
13.14%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 20.53%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
11.74%
Net income growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 21.14%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
12.59%
EPS growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 24.24%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
12.86%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 25.00%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-0.82%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.80%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.16%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
15.33%
OCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 113.52%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
10.08%
FCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 109.08%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
69.30%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
48.57%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
30.76%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
169.40%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 947.43%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
106.95%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 77.18%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
57.28%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 15.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
275.27%
Below 50% of MRVL's 3818.96%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
182.32%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 225.61%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
107.02%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 80.56%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
40.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 46.85%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
7.63%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
10.99%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
518.41%
Dividend/share CAGR of 518.41% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
121.07%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
82.03%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
2.19%
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.
1.24%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.25%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 2.07%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.29%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 3.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.02%
Debt growth of 0.02% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
1.56%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-10.20%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 6.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.