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.
6.66%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
6.29%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
8.23%
EBIT growth below 50% of QCOM's 47.48%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
8.57%
Operating income growth under 50% of QCOM's 47.48%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
0.46%
Net income growth under 50% of QCOM's 4.86%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.72%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.11%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.73%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QCOM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-29.07%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-13.10%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
53.66%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 89.50%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
48.77%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 88.30%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
17.46%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 30.74%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
133.79%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1109.97%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
87.28%
Below 50% of QCOM's 205.93%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
49.88%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 55.25%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
106.89%
Below 50% of QCOM's 277.46%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
120.86%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 60.70%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
49.13%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 28.31%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
15.89%
Below 50% of QCOM's 360.18%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
13.63%
Below 50% of QCOM's 102.45%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
1.63%
Below 50% of QCOM's 48.93%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
463.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 463.52% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
378.03%
Dividend/share CAGR of 378.03% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
200.44%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 200.44% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
19.50%
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.
6.16%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.07%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 5.31%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.59%
Under 50% of QCOM's 4.66%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.52%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.16%
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.