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.
3.98%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 10.75%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.45%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 19.43%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-29.68%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 38.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-29.68%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 38.89%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
97.89%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
120.00%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
120.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-10.05%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-10.05%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-7.61%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
45.99%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
40.95%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-16.58%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 967.05%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-18.69%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-7.31%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
28.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1283.67%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-6.59%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
4.84%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
131.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-90.07%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-54.01%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
290.57%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2827.94%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
58.71%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
37.68%
Below 50% of QCOM's 189.43%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
10.87%
Dividend/share CAGR of 10.87% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
2.63%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2.63% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
8.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 8.23% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-2.08%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 8.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
0.37%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 2.05%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.60%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
8.39%
Positive BV/share change while QCOM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.24%
Debt growth of 0.24% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
2.72%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 1.14%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
4.75%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 22.68%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.