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.
1.55%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-0.04%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-5.71%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-3.85%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-2.16%
Negative net income growth while MRVL stands at 45.10%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.27%
Negative EPS growth while MRVL is at 44.44%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-1.54%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MRVL is at 44.44%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.22%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.33%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.06%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-57.51%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-134.00%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
48.25%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
25.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 33.50%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-15.86%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 11.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
60.00%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
2.07%
Below 50% of MRVL's 49.08%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-59.84%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 1994.93%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
106.27%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
2.74%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-45.67%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
81.59%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MRVL's 77.27%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
117.02%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 52.56%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
18.72%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
299.12%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.25%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
50.60%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
18.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 2.38%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
77.72%
Our AR growth while MRVL is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
3.53%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.93%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.73%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.50%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
5.30%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 3.59%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.83%
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.