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.
10.39%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
12.03%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x QCOM's 5.63%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
24.89%
EBIT growth above 1.5x QCOM's 13.00%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
24.89%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 13.00%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
20.16%
Net income growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 38.65%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
19.05%
EPS growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 36.36%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
19.05%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 38.10%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
1.79%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 0.75%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-1.12%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 1.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.76%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.10%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
28.75%
OCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 71.04%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
1975.00%
FCF growth above 1.5x QCOM's 84.98%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
7.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1013.23%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
22.96%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
61.53%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 59.48%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
45.01%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 6416.13%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
48.79%
Below 50% of QCOM's 222.26%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-12.33%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 518.34%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
99.88%
Below 50% of QCOM's 5405.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
21.43%
Below 50% of QCOM's 857.03%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
327.27%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 206.58%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
287.62%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2013.38%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
68.15%
Below 50% of QCOM's 424.87%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-0.31%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 52.61%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
81.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 81.51% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.12%
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.
1.53%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 1.53% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
15.02%
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.
11.93%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 12.91%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.68%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 6.82%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.11%
Under 50% of QCOM's 7.11%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-4.70%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
4.05%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 12.73%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
5.93%
We expand SG&A while QCOM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.