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.
5.20%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 22.11%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-6.44%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 15.14%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-6.41%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 164.71%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-6.41%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 164.71%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
0.69%
Net income growth under 50% of QCOM's 49.32%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
-5.26%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 8.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-5.26%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 8.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.57%
Share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 38.36%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.27%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 38.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
2.54%
Dividend growth of 2.54% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
4.31%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-94.07%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
137.93%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 568.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
76.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 568.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
71.38%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 139.77%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-9.01%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
42.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 55.75%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
665.18%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 665.18% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
548.82%
Net income/share CAGR of 548.82% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
257.19%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1143.23%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
128.96%
Below 50% of QCOM's 5560.45%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
49.99%
Below 50% of QCOM's 5560.45%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
98.79%
Below 50% of QCOM's 567.41%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
4.56%
Dividend/share CAGR of 4.56% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
23.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 23.92% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.96%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.96% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.71%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 19.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
6.77%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 38.80%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
6.61%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 135.65%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
5.79%
Under 50% of QCOM's 99.91%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-6.21%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 13.11%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 11.27%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
40.00%
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.