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.
8.08%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of QCOM's 9.92%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
4.16%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QCOM's 10.66%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
2800.34%
EBIT growth above 1.5x QCOM's 133.33%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
2800.34%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 133.33%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
1.08%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-15.38%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-15.38%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.25%
Share change of 0.25% while QCOM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.83%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
4.28%
Dividend growth of 4.28% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
8.56%
OCF growth above 1.5x QCOM's 4.65%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
11.00%
FCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 85.83%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
87.72%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 583.83%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
34.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 583.83%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
46.44%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 254.02%. 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.
30.37%
OCF/share CAGR of 30.37% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
13.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 13.89% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
473.10%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 473.10% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
370.76%
Net income/share CAGR of 370.76% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
303.98%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 303.98% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
73.62%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2829.22%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
9.94%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2829.22%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
43.36%
Below 50% of QCOM's 10152.27%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-25.54%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-13.13%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-11.62%
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.
-1.10%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 32.98%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
1.38%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.13%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 5.82%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
5.88%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QCOM's 0.54%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-4.09%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.74%. 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.
6.96%
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.