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.
-0.91%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
6.12%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-72.73%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-72.73%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
372.73%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
200.00%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
200.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.25%
Share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 0.67%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.48%
Slight or no buyback while QCOM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.25%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
786.67%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
125.30%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
11.86%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 30842.03%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-14.43%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 10304.66%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-35.92%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 3585.88%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
11.67%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-24.52%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-54.44%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-61.41%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 32637.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-82.09%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 1786.66%. 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.
131.78%
Below 50% of QCOM's 7965.87%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
60.37%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1650.03%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
87.55%
Dividend/share CAGR of 87.55% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
14.29%
Dividend/share CAGR of 14.29% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
37.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 37.39% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.10%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 4.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-9.02%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 27.73%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.16%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 1.21%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.55%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 2.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.23%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-6.71%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 2.87%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
25.55%
SG&A growth well above QCOM's 5.84%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.