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.
-10.32%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 1.84%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-13.87%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 4.23%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-72.60%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-51.78%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-53.37%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-49.18%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-49.18%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.03%
Share change of 0.03% while QCOM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.23%
Diluted share change of 0.23% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
0.66%
Dividend growth of 0.66% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
329.17%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
25.90%
FCF growth above 1.5x QCOM's 13.23%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
53.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 729.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
17.67%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 325.57%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-2.29%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 178.80%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
582.23%
OCF/share CAGR of 582.23% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-38.49%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
392.80%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 392.80% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
140.03%
Net income/share CAGR of 140.03% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
-41.82%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 157.70%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
80.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 80.63% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
71.68%
Below 50% of QCOM's 706.36%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
104.00%
Dividend/share CAGR of 104.00% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-78.68%
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.
15.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.10% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-3.94%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 23.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
0.35%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 52.17%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.30%
Similar asset growth to QCOM's 1.32%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
1.11%
Similar to QCOM's 1.15%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
14.36%
Debt growth far above QCOM's 7.47%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-3.29%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 9.63%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.26%
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.