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.
-25.76%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 20.66%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-23.84%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-64.30%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-51.83%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-43.99%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-38.89%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-38.89%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.06%
Share change of 0.06% while QCOM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.20%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.09%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-113.53%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-8871.43%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
86.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 714.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
35.01%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 319.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
36.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 234.12%. 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.
-222.14%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-166.68%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
1100.28%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 1100.28% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
350.91%
Net income/share CAGR of 350.91% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
93.82%
Below 50% of QCOM's 531.61%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
53.91%
Equity/share CAGR of 53.91% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
101.64%
Below 50% of QCOM's 715.36%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.40% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
40.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 40.10% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-1.06%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 30.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
1.41%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 62.05%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.01%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 2.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
3.26%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QCOM's 1.41%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
37.42%
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.
-36.28%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 36.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.