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.
-3.47%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 0.56%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.47%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 20.48%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.63%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 94.87%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.39%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 94.87%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-11.53%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-10.81%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-11.56%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.11%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.11%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
4.58%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
15.36%
OCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 8.67%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
93.75%
FCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.73%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
40.67%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
22.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 45.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-15.98%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 39.27%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
80.26%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 213.03%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
16.53%
Below 50% of MRVL's 289.94%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-14.12%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 168.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
67.62%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
15.21%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-42.90%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
86.70%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MRVL's 82.54%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
94.14%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 54.43%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
28.44%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 36.95%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
299.73%
Stable or rising dividend while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
50.84%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
18.30%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-7.68%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
5.38%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.53%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-2.01%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-6.71%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.20%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
4.21%
We expand SG&A while MRVL cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.