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.
-7.99%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 5.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-8.87%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 4.81%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-18.98%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.98%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-12.32%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-9.09%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-9.26%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-3.28%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-3.79%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.35%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-54.95%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-66.02%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
75.89%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
88.01%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 113.08%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
41.12%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 75.97%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
1774.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 8.04%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
311.93%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 155.13%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
57.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 122.20%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
6975.22%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 74.76% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
612.67%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 204.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
106.47%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 49.88%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
93.88%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 21.88%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
15.72%
Below 50% of QCOM's 153.46%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
6.14%
Below 50% of QCOM's 51.35%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
373.82%
Dividend/share CAGR of 373.82% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
352.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 352.76% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
296.48%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 296.48% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.19%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
11.28%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 11.30%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-2.60%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
2.17%
Positive BV/share change while QCOM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.98%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 6.24%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.08%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 20.43%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.