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.
17.79%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
39.45%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
272.17%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
3330.00%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
1429.41%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
2000.00%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1900.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.63%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.39%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.80%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
121.91%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
144.71%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
29.78%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 69.93%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
5.55%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 97.30%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-18.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 34.91%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
128.04%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 404.45%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
53.26%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to QCOM's 56.53%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
6.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 43.19%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-0.33%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-17.92%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-86.65%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
73.41%
Below 50% of QCOM's 925.60%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
3.13%
Below 50% of QCOM's 95.40%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-11.69%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 28.71%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
417.19%
Dividend/share CAGR of 417.19% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
423.04%
5Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 812.70%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging policy in mid-term shareholder returns.
262.50%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 262.50% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
10.58%
Our AR growth while QCOM is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-3.19%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.09%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 2.68%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.66%
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.
-4.40%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
7.21%
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.