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.
-2.98%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-10.41%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-26.33%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-26.33%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-12.97%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-12.12%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-12.50%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.35%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
22.65%
Dividend growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 40.88%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in returning cash to shareholders.
38.54%
OCF growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 75.66%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
78.76%
FCF growth similar to QCOM's 74.34%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
-2.53%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 460.23%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
16.81%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 2.83%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
63.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 62.57%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
160.39%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 3305.63%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
34.06%
Below 50% of QCOM's 5150.95%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
55.27%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 132.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
124.14%
Below 50% of QCOM's 9219.39%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
7.41%
Below 50% of QCOM's 181.68%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
492.03%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 288.98%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
269.66%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1354.51%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
41.08%
Below 50% of QCOM's 228.21%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
2.06%
Below 50% of QCOM's 84.76%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
64.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 64.52% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
29.35%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.35% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
13.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 13.43% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.69%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-7.37%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 40.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.00%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 5.85%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.65%
Under 50% of QCOM's 5.72%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.04%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.04%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 7.14%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.72%
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.