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.
-51.02%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 20.56%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-46.54%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 19.98%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-9.60%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 170.18%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-55.20%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 170.18%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
80.95%
Net income growth under 50% of QCOM's 426.67%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
81.13%
EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 400.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
81.13%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 400.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.19%
Slight or no buybacks while QCOM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.19%
Slight or no buyback while QCOM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-3.21%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
316.99%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 221.71%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
184.15%
FCF growth above 1.5x QCOM's 57.78%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-28.67%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 1300.02%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-39.49%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 624.79%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-62.42%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 191.41%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
64.38%
OCF/share CAGR of 64.38% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
39.55%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 428.00%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-185.06%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
70.38%
Net income/share CAGR of 70.38% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
-115.93%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
91.70%
Below 50% of QCOM's 5270.20%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
88.43%
Below 50% of QCOM's 18695.71%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
33.93%
Below 50% of QCOM's 93.56%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.01% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
19.89%
Dividend/share CAGR of 19.89% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
42.45%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 42.45% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-17.25%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 12.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-29.91%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 32.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.06%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 14.57%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.62%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 5.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
6.74%
Debt shrinking faster vs. QCOM's 143.01%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-55.80%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 3.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-10.69%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 15.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.