PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-4.70%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with QCOM at -15.30%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-1.96%
Negative yoy D&A while QCOM is 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
155.56%
Well above QCOM's 273.53% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
-5.33%
Negative yoy SBC while QCOM is 5.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
131.94%
Slight usage while QCOM is negative at -941.67%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
81.25%
AR growth well above QCOM's 91.21%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
70.00%
Some inventory rise while QCOM is negative at -18.36%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
52.78%
Lower AP growth vs. QCOM's 22000.00%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
261.70%
Some yoy usage while QCOM is negative at -118.48%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
833.33%
Well above QCOM's 125.00%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
70.77%
Some CFO growth while QCOM is negative at -6.27%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-27.84%
Both yoy lines negative, with QCOM at -8.65%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
27.84%
Acquisition spending well above QCOM's 49.46%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier integration risk or short-term free cash flow drain vs. competitor.
58.49%
Some yoy expansion while QCOM is negative at -10.81%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-69.92%
We reduce yoy sales while QCOM is 24.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
-24.74%
Both yoy lines negative, with QCOM at -104.55%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-168.39%
We reduce yoy invests while QCOM stands at 5.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
100.00%
Debt repayment growth of 100.00% while QCOM is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
1.75%
We slightly raise equity while QCOM is negative at -46.68%. John Neff sees competitor possibly preserving share count or buying back shares.
-1.80%
We cut yoy buybacks while QCOM is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.