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 / 6.59M (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.
2.06%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 10.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
4.38%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
10.11%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
9.21%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
7.23%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
6.98%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.94%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.21%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 11.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.31%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 10.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.06%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 19.03%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
62.24%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
76.64%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
101.87%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
27.36%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
20.00%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
336.00%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
164.88%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
79.90%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 117.85%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
578.69%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
118.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
70.62%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MRVL's 101.65%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
24.55%
Below 50% of MRVL's 127.24%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-7.32%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MRVL is at 56.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-8.78%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MRVL is at 70.08%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
602.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 602.36% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
155.50%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 18.33%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
102.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 18.05%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-1.46%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 34.47%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-2.44%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 179.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.34%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 113.04%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.17%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 61.08%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.10%
Debt growth of 0.10% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
0.26%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 22.38%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
1.45%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MRVL's 84.89%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.