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.
1.73%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 6.38%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
1.31%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QCOM's 6.02%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-2.41%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 6.67%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.41%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 6.67%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-70.59%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 8.43%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-69.48%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 5.56%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-69.33%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 8.82%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-3.03%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.09%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.41%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.93%
Dividend growth of 0.93% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-34.43%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-46.04%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
57.48%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 475.20%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
125.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 175.91%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
69.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 99.82%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
176.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1958.92%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
39.23%
Below 50% of QCOM's 13409.96%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-6.21%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 123.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
581.29%
Below 50% of QCOM's 29586.77%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
765.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 311.84%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
79.28%
Below 50% of QCOM's 216.62%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
194.56%
Below 50% of QCOM's 984.92%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
15.59%
Below 50% of QCOM's 128.34%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
20.14%
Below 50% of QCOM's 70.27%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
40.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.48% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
37.98%
Dividend/share CAGR of 37.98% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
41.93%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 41.93% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.29%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 22.14%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
11.69%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 18.81%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-7.18%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-3.02%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.34%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 1.28%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.35%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 11.41%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.