PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
-5.74%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 24.41%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.15%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QCOM's 35.73%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-20.25%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 61.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
2.69%
Operating income growth under 50% of QCOM's 61.25%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-16.12%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 30.59%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-17.24%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 29.17%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-14.29%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 25.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.33%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 1.06%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.36%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 5.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.95%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-59.92%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-77.51%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-9.32%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 559.24%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
3.28%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 0.64%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
81.70%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 85.72%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
96.01%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1353.60%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
24.83%
Below 50% of QCOM's 295.51%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
97.36%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 38.63%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
56.05%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3029.96%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-6.33%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 134.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
1308.11%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 243.93%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
217.61%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1283.05%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
1.99%
Below 50% of QCOM's 127.30%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
12.23%
Below 50% of QCOM's 88.83%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
63.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 63.26% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
17.88%
Dividend/share CAGR of 17.88% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.81% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.88%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 1.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-7.69%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 6.89%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-7.64%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 5.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.58%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.43%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 9.92%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-4.97%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 1.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.