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.
-19.42%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 4.27%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-49.76%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 18.46%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-230.13%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 153.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-230.13%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 153.96%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-185.65%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 165.17%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-184.62%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 150.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-184.62%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 146.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
1.23%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 0.69%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.23%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 7.65%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-1.21%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
392.44%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
131.24%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-15.41%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 1260.54%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-28.11%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 219.70%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-17.91%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
1951.34%
OCF/share CAGR of 1951.34% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
200.68%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 259.33%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
65.62%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 108.44%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
12.15%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 12.15% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
-319.46%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 6550.58%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-430.85%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
352.70%
Equity/share CAGR of 352.70% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
150.63%
Below 50% of QCOM's 328.02%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
85.64%
Positive short-term equity growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-79.28%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-2.78%
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.
-2.08%
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.
-14.48%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-8.31%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 16.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-3.13%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 5.64%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.76%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 3.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-2.28%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-7.62%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 23.37%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
14.94%
SG&A growth well above QCOM's 9.14%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.