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.
6.71%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
1.74%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-18.30%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.30%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
3.42%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.42%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 0.73%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
3.42%
Diluted share count expanding well above QCOM's 0.29%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-3.31%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
92.86%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 75.15%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
237.50%
FCF growth above 1.5x QCOM's 112.69%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-16.43%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 1146.64%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-2.34%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-18.48%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 30.21%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
23.60%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 4215.17%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
10.68%
Below 50% of QCOM's 139.19%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-41.48%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 106.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-18.75%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is at 11227.47%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
110.54%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-90.75%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
285.08%
Below 50% of QCOM's 4317.69%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
66.14%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-14.43%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 16.83%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
15.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.94% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
1.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.45% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
7.83%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 7.83% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.49%
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.
13.38%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 40.40%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.66%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 16.93%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.39%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 17.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-12.30%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
3.92%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 17.18%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
8.97%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 99.91%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.