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.
-7.99%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 2.10%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-8.87%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 3.53%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-18.98%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 72.21%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.98%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 72.21%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-12.32%
Negative net income growth while MRVL stands at 62.42%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-9.09%
Negative EPS growth while MRVL is at 62.54%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-9.26%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MRVL is at 62.54%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-3.28%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.79%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.35%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-54.95%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 692.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-66.02%
Negative FCF growth while MRVL is at 104.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
75.89%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 577.75%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
88.01%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 416.85%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
41.12%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 112.12%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1774.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 395.26%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
311.93%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to MRVL's 343.56%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
57.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 74.20%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
6975.22%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
612.67%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
106.47%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
93.88%
Below 50% of MRVL's 7410.91%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
15.72%
Below 50% of MRVL's 31.52%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
6.14%
Below 50% of MRVL's 30.07%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
373.82%
Dividend/share CAGR of 373.82% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
352.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 352.76% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
296.48%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 296.48% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.19%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
11.28%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 8.33%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-2.60%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
2.17%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.98%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 4.80%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.08%
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.