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.
91.94%
Revenue growth above 1.5x QCOM's 37.34%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
122.82%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
188.14%
EBIT growth 75-90% of QCOM's 225.47%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
188.14%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of QCOM's 225.47%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
560.71%
Net income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 15.52%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
589.13%
EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 42.86%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
589.13%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 42.86%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.32%
Slight or no buybacks while QCOM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
3.74%
Slight or no buyback while QCOM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.32%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-54.39%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-88.70%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
43.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 15337.18%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-15.35%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 7006.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-11.62%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 5025.20%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2204.86%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-32.61%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
39.09%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 39.09% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
104.35%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2571.58%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-7.92%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 1191.56%. 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.
40.90%
Below 50% of QCOM's 5648.56%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
63.10%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2390.59%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
101.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 101.36% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-22.01%
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.
80.04%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 80.04% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.56%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 50.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-5.69%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 42.77%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.04%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 10.68%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
3.01%
Under 50% of QCOM's 705.78%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
20.71%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
8.55%
SG&A growth well above QCOM's 11.05%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.