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.
13.12%
Revenue growth above 1.5x QCOM's 5.53%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
16.17%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x QCOM's 7.87%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
10.22%
EBIT growth below 50% of QCOM's 127.31%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
12.17%
Operating income growth under 50% of QCOM's 127.31%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
13.43%
Net income growth under 50% of QCOM's 130.75%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
8.33%
EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 72.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
8.70%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 91.11%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
2.53%
Share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 31.55%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
1.38%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 5.23%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.49%
Dividend growth of 0.49% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
83.58%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
152.78%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
12.26%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 3625.45%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-16.56%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 444.79%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
101.94%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 166.10%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
153.21%
OCF/share CAGR of 153.21% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
94.23%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
34.58%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
882.41%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 882.41% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
108.68%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3337.52%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
1537.14%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 1124.53%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
188.07%
Below 50% of QCOM's 12881.43%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
162.02%
Below 50% of QCOM's 343.17%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
99.34%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 141.73%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
10.49%
Dividend/share CAGR of 10.49% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
27.18%
Dividend/share CAGR of 27.18% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-6.24%
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.
-5.96%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 15.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
18.73%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 21.13%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
13.87%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 52.31%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
13.93%
Under 50% of QCOM's 28.61%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.91%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 12.13%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-3.71%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
28.49%
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.