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.
10.84%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
16.44%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
26.41%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
13.75%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
0.48%
Net income growth under 50% of QCOM's 5.26%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
2.63%
EPS growth under 50% of QCOM's 6.25%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.55%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.36%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-99.94%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
83.07%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
86.67%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-2.77%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 510.12%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
20.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 72.90%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
68.07%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 66.80%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
175.37%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1068.98%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
228.76%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 98.09%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
182.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 606.58%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
102.53%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3329.27%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-1.52%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 228.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
253.22%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3951.34%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
186.13%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1515.40%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
1.13%
Below 50% of QCOM's 64.38%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
12.65%
Below 50% of QCOM's 88.58%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-99.93%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-99.92%
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.
-99.93%
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.
0.68%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 24.80%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-3.66%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 19.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.44%
Positive asset growth while QCOM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.15%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QCOM's 0.04%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-0.83%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.90%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 2.78%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
20.35%
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.