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 / 6.59M (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.
2.97%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
4.03%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
16.31%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
12.45%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
207.84%
Net income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 12.76%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
204.00%
EPS growth of 204.00% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
200.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 8.33%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
4.94%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 7.86%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
5.32%
Diluted share count expanding well above QCOM's 1.34%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-7.43%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
59.20%
OCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 212.33%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
136.40%
FCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 309.07%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
36.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 2747.22%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-23.23%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 239.17%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-0.63%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
277.93%
OCF/share CAGR of 277.93% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
42.76%
Below 50% of QCOM's 850.07%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-5.23%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 166.12%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
8874.99%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 8874.99% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
307.63%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1293.07%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
365.54%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 21.16%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
292.02%
Equity/share CAGR of 292.02% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
211.37%
Below 50% of QCOM's 720.39%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
153.92%
Positive short-term equity growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
7.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 7.92% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
29.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.26% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-7.85%
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.
9.79%
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.
8.75%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
11.76%
Asset growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 23.23%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
7.81%
Under 50% of QCOM's 27.16%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.82%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.25%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 8.09%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
3.09%
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.