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.
2.14%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 25.55%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
12.09%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QCOM's 26.23%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
128.36%
EBIT growth above 1.5x QCOM's 76.73%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
128.36%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 76.73%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
119.86%
Net income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 26.83%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
119.44%
EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 33.33%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
119.44%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 25.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
2.54%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 1.31%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.54%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 5.51%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.23%
Dividend growth of 0.23% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-73.66%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-87.40%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1512.19%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-6.45%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-22.48%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
64.62%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 9812.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
506.54%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-52.39%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 244.46%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
26.17%
Below 50% of QCOM's 6749.10%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
892.78%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-72.86%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 15.61%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
363.72%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3725.44%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
67.55%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-6.45%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 35.73%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
46.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 46.91% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
4.65%
Dividend/share CAGR of 4.65% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
3.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 3.23% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.16%
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.
11.65%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 22.15%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.93%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 7.97%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.52%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 7.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-20.32%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 66.39%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.97%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 2.28%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.51%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 12.25%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.