PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
-4.54%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 13.36%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.90%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 16.37%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-38.53%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 82.35%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-38.53%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 82.35%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-413.30%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 1482.06%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-427.27%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 1448.31%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-427.27%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 1448.31%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-4.63%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-4.63%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
3.93%
Dividend growth of 3.93% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
31.68%
OCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 540.98%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
71.62%
FCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 1100.23%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-5.13%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 1026.44%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-15.47%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 11.45%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-15.91%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
85.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 2453.19%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
50.12%
Below 50% of QCOM's 344.75%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-19.16%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 3085.50%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-771.93%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is at 11995.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-97.66%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 384.59%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-236.55%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 43.10%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
384.28%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2839.71%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
73.59%
Below 50% of QCOM's 303.81%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
22.61%
Below 50% of QCOM's 92.06%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
31.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.76% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
1.27%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.27% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
11.94%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 11.94% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-19.03%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 68.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-4.01%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 10.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.48%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 3.45%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.47%
50-75% of QCOM's 2.19%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.72%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-6.80%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.