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.
4.34%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
7.29%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
14.75%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
14.68%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
21.75%
Net income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 8.82%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
23.26%
EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 6.67%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
23.81%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 9.09%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-1.04%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.54%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.63%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
9.10%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QCOM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
20.02%
Similar OCF growth to QCOM's 21.53%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
-7.07%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 25.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
54.53%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 141.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
32.29%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 134.52%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
2.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 33.60%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
42.74%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 8598.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
6.47%
Below 50% of QCOM's 65.66%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
40.02%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 37.76%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
99.29%
Below 50% of QCOM's 460.12%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
85.55%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 98.85%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
15.90%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of QCOM's 29.68%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
45.75%
Below 50% of QCOM's 572.05%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
3.31%
Below 50% of QCOM's 104.76%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
1.15%
Below 50% of QCOM's 50.45%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
508.03%
Dividend/share CAGR of 508.03% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
370.06%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 141.16%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
203.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 41.90%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-11.01%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
7.71%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 20.80%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.81%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 6.74%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.09%
50-75% of QCOM's 7.99%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-3.80%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
2.35%
SG&A growth well above QCOM's 3.71%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.