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.
1.51%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 4.32%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
2.75%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
2.63%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
2.40%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
2.95%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
3.03%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
3.96%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.11%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 2.95%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.21%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.20%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-9.04%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
58.23%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
94.62%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
55.90%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 12.92%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
38.84%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
491.32%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
191.60%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 98.35%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
97.03%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
928.53%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
138.70%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
83.99%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
56.79%
Below 50% of MRVL's 179.18%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
42.46%
Below 50% of MRVL's 165.88%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
67.39%
Below 50% of MRVL's 148.63%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
575.06%
Dividend/share CAGR of 575.06% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
129.88%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
49.37%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
5.53%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 29.39%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
7.85%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 100.62%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
2.43%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 97.21%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
5.24%
Under 50% of MRVL's 71.06%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-5.65%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 310.66%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.51%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 9.88%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
4.46%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MRVL's 72.31%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.