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.
-9.93%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 30.67%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-29.32%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 28.14%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
89.00%
EBIT growth above 1.5x QCOM's 47.61%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
89.00%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 47.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
103.86%
Net income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 22.06%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
105.56%
EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 37.80%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
105.56%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 18.11%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.07%
Slight or no buybacks while QCOM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.33%
Slight or no buyback while QCOM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-3.01%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-109.49%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-487.33%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
20.18%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 32085.67%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
8.64%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 13109.00%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-27.24%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 4360.57%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-140.49%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 23035.49%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-118.39%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 2678.31%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-89.63%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-87.29%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 11685.87%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-95.45%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 2584.34%. 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.
176.77%
Below 50% of QCOM's 7855.54%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
73.88%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1617.53%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
88.03%
Dividend/share CAGR of 88.03% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
40.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.38% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
36.61%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 36.61% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-2.29%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 11.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
4.58%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 25.07%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-4.42%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 6.67%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.99%
Under 50% of QCOM's 791.02%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-3.24%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-55.74%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 4.19%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-10.57%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 25.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.