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.
10.21%
Revenue growth above 1.5x QCOM's 4.37%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
21.35%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
103.17%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
103.17%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
80.00%
Net income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 29.41%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
66.67%
EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 30.77%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
66.67%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 30.77%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
30.34%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 0.99%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
30.34%
Diluted share count expanding well above QCOM's 0.99%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-26.23%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
1562.50%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
163.89%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
44.03%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 124.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
33.59%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 124.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
17.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 124.51%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
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.
461.80%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 461.80% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
43.62%
Net income/share CAGR of 43.62% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
-30.51%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
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.
90.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 90.48% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
76.37%
Dividend/share CAGR of 76.37% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
76.37%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 76.37% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
25.69%
AR growth well above QCOM's 45.24%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-2.17%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
7.24%
Positive asset growth while QCOM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-21.23%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
19.09%
We have some new debt while QCOM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.56%
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.