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.
8.29%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
17.45%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
99.20%
EBIT growth above 1.5x QCOM's 45.08%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
99.20%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 45.08%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
269.42%
Net income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 86.08%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
271.43%
EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 84.62%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
257.14%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 84.62%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.54%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
3.44%
Slight or no buyback while QCOM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.54%
Dividend growth of 0.54% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
34.92%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
28.24%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-3.87%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 624.20%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
8.86%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-19.76%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 21.19%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
64.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 2858.85%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-17.74%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 124.95%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
4.61%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 35.01%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
151.10%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1112.44%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
147.51%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 187.54%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
-34.10%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 16.26%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
308.57%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3543.63%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
72.15%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-8.05%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 17.10%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
31.93%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.93% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.18%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
5.82%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 5.82% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.69%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 16.07%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-0.50%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.09%
Similar asset growth to QCOM's 3.06%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
5.01%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QCOM's 2.44%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-4.68%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 35.57%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
10.38%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 2.95%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-4.57%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.