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.)
37.59 | 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.
9.86%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 7.33%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
0.99%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QCOM's 16.24%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
3232.57%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
3232.57%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-8.90%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 19.67%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.50%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 20.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 20.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-18.38%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
16.37%
Diluted share change of 16.37% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-9.44%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
36.22%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
88.24%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 61.92%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
106.37%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 380.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
57.31%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 380.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
53.45%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 380.44%. 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.
-22.10%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
440.05%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 440.05% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
56.48%
Net income/share CAGR of 56.48% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
370.04%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 370.04% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
70.39%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2674.39%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
50.67%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2674.39%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
11.63%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2674.39%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-29.09%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
31.31%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.31% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-15.96%
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.
3.13%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 17.99%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-7.95%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 11.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.04%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 111.30%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
23.65%
Under 50% of QCOM's 210.22%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.95%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 3.39%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.65%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 29.71%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.