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.
18.34%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
40.10%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
452.27%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
452.27%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
350.00%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
350.00%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
350.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
18.11%
Dividend growth of 18.11% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
30.74%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
19.32%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-23.21%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 1032.38%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-31.88%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-23.85%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
92.96%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 991.67%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-48.34%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 144.02%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
5.65%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-12.50%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is at 1666.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-69.24%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-75.71%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 171.51%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
285.89%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3213.53%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
105.52%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
42.79%
Below 50% of QCOM's 236.32%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
15.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.92% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
6.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.77% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
8.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 8.43% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
22.90%
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.
6.77%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-3.53%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 0.90%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.98%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 1.71%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.12%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 9.25%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
11.32%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 23.02%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.