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.
17.46%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
25.99%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x QCOM's 3.28%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
51.31%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
54.85%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
29.41%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
31.25%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
25.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.26%
Slight or no buybacks while QCOM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.57%
Slight or no buyback while QCOM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
2.76%
Dividend growth of 2.76% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
42.40%
OCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 216.84%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
260.00%
FCF growth above 1.5x QCOM's 164.33%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
18.29%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 4808.28%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-12.42%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 1192.58%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-5.56%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 491.98%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.54%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 1921.99%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
77.15%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 405.72%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
150.39%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 150.39% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
64.61%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
310.75%
Positive short-term CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
130.52%
Below 50% of QCOM's 302.65%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
48.58%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 24.45%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
88.55%
Dividend/share CAGR of 88.55% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
83.56%
Dividend/share CAGR of 83.56% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-0.18%
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.
18.90%
Our AR growth while QCOM is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
7.49%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.61%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.37%
Under 50% of QCOM's 4.99%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.08%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
17.36%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 2.34%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
4.02%
We expand SG&A while QCOM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.