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.
0.28%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 10.27%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
0.54%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QCOM's 10.31%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
10.98%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 7.86%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
10.98%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 7.86%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
27.66%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
32.00%
EPS growth of 32.00% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
28.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 28.00% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-1.93%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.54%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.28%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.79%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 42.78%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
86.17%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
308.00%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
7.93%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 638.85%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
32.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
69.82%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 95.80%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
102.84%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1928.89%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
72.68%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 126.81%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
172.49%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 7460.58%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
158.75%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2899.35%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
36.06%
Below 50% of QCOM's 511.76%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
564.91%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 265.52%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
285.05%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1283.22%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
58.13%
Below 50% of QCOM's 380.90%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
7.89%
Below 50% of QCOM's 65.86%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
39.88%
Dividend/share CAGR of 39.88% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
5.99%
Dividend/share CAGR of 5.99% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-6.00%
Negative near-term dividend growth while QCOM invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
1.81%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 50.41%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
5.53%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 12.83%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.54%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 5.93%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
5.72%
Similar to QCOM's 6.26%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
-51.52%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-6.03%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 14.55%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-6.93%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 17.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.