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.
-12.77%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-14.16%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.48%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.73%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-21.08%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.88%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.62%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.65%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.92%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
24.31%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.85%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
1.85%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
4.95%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
100.57%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
39.89%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
23.68%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
157.89%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
103.87%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
59.17%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1456.48%
Below 50% of MRVL's 4409.62%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
176.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 3.56%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
57.27%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
29.63%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 45.16%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
-5.16%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-4.04%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
601.64%
Dividend/share CAGR of 601.64% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
157.27%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
102.33%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-23.85%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
4.77%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-7.73%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 0.56%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-13.04%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 2.07%. 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.
2.56%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 8.78%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
4.55%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MRVL's 15.53%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.