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.
5.02%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 7.38%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
134.81%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x QCOM's 16.54%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-2.59%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 257.14%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.59%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 257.14%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
35.09%
Net income growth of 35.09% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate into a larger gap.
25.00%
EPS growth of 25.00% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
25.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 25.00% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
19.32%
Share change of 19.32% while QCOM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
19.32%
Diluted share change of 19.32% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-12.55%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
14.29%
OCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 247.37%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
6.22%
FCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 416.67%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
38.83%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 179.01%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
13.74%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 179.01%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-0.50%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 179.01%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
10.25%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 10.25% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
258.23%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 258.23% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
-12.15%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
99.65%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 99.65% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
15.18%
Below 50% of QCOM's 748.12%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-0.88%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 748.12%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-27.07%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 748.12%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-19.54%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
48.99%
Dividend/share CAGR of 48.99% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-6.13%
Negative near-term dividend growth while QCOM invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-12.16%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-8.02%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.07%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 5.66%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-18.17%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
1.05%
Debt growth of 1.05% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.30%
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.