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 / 6.59M (Avg.)
37.73 | 5.46
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%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
11.33%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
14.74%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
18.05%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
9.84%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
10.85%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
10.16%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.22%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.44%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.02%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.12%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
119.08%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
302.55%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
56.74%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 137.29%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
38.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 117.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-13.53%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 0.21%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
158.33%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 678.35%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
9.09%
Below 50% of QCOM's 143.30%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
6.59%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
111.90%
Below 50% of QCOM's 297.91%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-5.33%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 519.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-42.73%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
83.06%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 9.19%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
116.48%
Below 50% of QCOM's 839.48%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
17.94%
Below 50% of QCOM's 112.00%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
297.32%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 103.15%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
51.38%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 37.27%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
18.05%
3Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 25.11%. Martin Whitman might see a weaker short-term approach to distributing cash.
-36.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 4.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.67%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
3.48%
Positive asset growth while QCOM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.20%
Under 50% of QCOM's 3.72%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
9.30%
Debt growth far above QCOM's 0.32%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
1.93%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.75%
We expand SG&A while QCOM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.