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.
9.31%
Revenue growth similar to MRVL's 9.65%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
11.33%
Gross profit growth similar to MRVL's 11.33%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
14.74%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 34.95%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
18.05%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 34.95%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
9.84%
Net income growth comparable to MRVL's 10.34%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
10.85%
EPS growth similar to MRVL's 12.00%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
10.16%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of MRVL's 12.00%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
-0.22%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.44%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.02%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.11%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
119.08%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
302.55%
FCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 8.82%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
56.74%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
38.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 42.66%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-13.53%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 12.21%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
158.33%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 15.42%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
9.09%
Below 50% of MRVL's 208.26%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
6.59%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 30.84%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
111.90%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-5.33%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-42.73%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 33.68%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
83.06%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 69.27%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
116.48%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 45.10%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
17.94%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
297.32%
Stable or rising dividend while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
51.38%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
18.05%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-36.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 20.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.67%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
3.48%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.20%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
9.30%
Debt growth far above MRVL's 5.50%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
1.93%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 2.23%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.75%
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.