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 / 6.54M (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.
-7.18%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 11.53%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-3.63%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 9.29%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.36%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.36%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-10.69%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 15.24%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-9.76%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 18.75%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 12.50%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.18%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.80%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.22%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.95%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
1.20%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QCOM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-38.66%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-73.49%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
19.20%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 629.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
47.21%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 131.93%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
60.39%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 51.11%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
839.85%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 1491.38%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
422.47%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 113.69%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
199.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 71.74%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
243.23%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3669.00%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
183.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 346.98%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
427.26%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 144.66%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
154.02%
Below 50% of QCOM's 806.47%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-3.52%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 117.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
10.46%
Below 50% of QCOM's 93.21%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
43.45%
Dividend/share CAGR of 43.45% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
44.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 44.81% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
36.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 36.80% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.10%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 33.82%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-2.12%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 10.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-6.80%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 7.61%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.73%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 6.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-51.89%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.60%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 25.46%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-0.94%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 33.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.