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.
-5.68%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 5.76%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
9.32%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QCOM's 21.68%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
43.39%
EBIT growth 50-75% of QCOM's 59.53%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
33.50%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 59.53%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
15.24%
Net income growth under 50% of QCOM's 583.14%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
20.00%
EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 572.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
20.00%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 572.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
45.37%
Share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 715.06%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
42.90%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 702.60%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-33.23%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-24.69%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 229.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-19.83%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 135.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-33.03%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 4459.12%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-57.43%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 848.95%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-63.08%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 581.51%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-37.86%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 2136.67%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-46.80%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 686.18%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
12.76%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 12.76% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
-27.94%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 195.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-56.65%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 227.47%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
115.41%
Below 50% of QCOM's 5961.95%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
42.97%
Below 50% of QCOM's 118.50%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
6.40%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 7.09%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
29.25%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.25% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.57%
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.
-33.25%
Negative near-term dividend growth while QCOM invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-2.35%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
8.42%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
6.96%
Positive asset growth while QCOM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-25.51%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-1.07%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 8.39%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-3.44%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 13.05%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
5.47%
SG&A growth well above QCOM's 10.03%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.