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.
7.84%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
7.84%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
7.84%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
7.84%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-34.14%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-33.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-33.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.64%
Slight or no buybacks while QCOM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.64%
Slight or no buyback while QCOM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
8.00%
Dividend growth above 1.5x QCOM's 4.33%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.81%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 161.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
7.81%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 118.62%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
7.81%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
291.16%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 231.57%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
291.16%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 225.62%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
291.16%
Positive short-term CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
8.00%
Below 50% of QCOM's 88.30%. Michael Burry might see weaker long-term distribution growth, raising questions about the firm's capital allocation.
8.00%
Below 50% of QCOM's 36.29%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
8.00%
Below 50% of QCOM's 18.12%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.