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.
2.24%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 8.74%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
47.23%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x QCOM's 16.37%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
83.58%
EBIT growth 50-75% of QCOM's 122.85%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
83.58%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 122.85%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
67.24%
Net income growth under 50% of QCOM's 171.65%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
72.41%
EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 169.23%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
72.41%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 165.38%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
18.75%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 0.91%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
18.75%
Diluted share count expanding well above QCOM's 6.80%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-13.45%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-62.05%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-67.65%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-45.13%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 1079.04%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-35.18%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-24.61%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
1782.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 14110.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-18.33%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 126.37%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
14.77%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 236.17%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-148.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is at 3583.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-123.65%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 40.93%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-112.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 102.11%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
216.59%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3073.12%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
124.69%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
49.26%
Below 50% of QCOM's 254.84%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-27.60%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-7.16%
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.
-5.66%
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.
4.26%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 11.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.26%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.53%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 10.18%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-16.01%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 5.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.24%
Debt growth of 0.24% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
1.57%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-11.96%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 5.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.